2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation
for Early Literacy Instruction
A Project of The Barksdale Reading Institute (BRI) and
The Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL)
STATEWIDE REPORT
December 2015
For public release 31 March 2016
Copies available for download at www.msreads.org
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
“Evidence-based” refers to practices that have been shown to be successful in
improving reading achievement. The success of these practices is demonstrated in two
ways: by research-study data collected according to rigorous design, and by consensus
among expert practitioners who monitor outcomes as part of their practice. These
results—whether scientific data or expert consensus—must be valid and reliable and
come from a variety of sources.
Reading Excellence Act, 1999
Research in reading should follow the norms of science. Each researcher must try to
learn from the work of those who preceded him and to add to a unified body of
knowledge—knowing that neither he nor anyone following him will ever have the final
word.
Jeanne Chall, Learning to Read: The Great Debate, 1967
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was made possible because of the vision and expertise of a dedicated team
committed to improving literacy for all children in Mississippi. I wish to publicly thank them here.
It must be acknowledged that this team included the deans and faculty of the 15 teacher preparation
programs. Your willingness to participate and your spirit of transparency have enabled a thorough
examination of how we are preparing teachers to teach reading in Mississippi. I owe you a hardy
thanks and hope that the trust that has been forged through this process will support the collective
efforts to come.
Thank you, Susan Lee, steadfast liaison to the Commissioner, you have been a patient and safe
sounding board.
I have been encouraged by my new friend from the Coalition for Reading Excellence, Robert Sweet,
Founder of the National Right to Read Foundation and author of several of the reports cited in this
document. To you I am indebted for your thoughtful and important contributions to the timeline of
reading research. You have survived all the reading skirmishes and been a persistent voice for
getting reading instruction right.
The colleagues most responsible for this Statewide Report and the 15 individual institutional reports
are a diligent and highly-skilled band. Each brought insight and remarkable fortitude to data
collection and synthesis, textbook analysis, field observations, and report writing. For your
respective contributions to each of these tasks, I say thank you to Michael Cormack, Linda Farrell,
Adrienne Dowden, Michael Hunter, Greer Proctor-Dickson, Cindy Hale, and Theresa Schultz. I am
especially grateful to Linda, you did the heavy lifting in synthesizing the science; and to Michael H
for your meticulous wordsmanship.
Assisting with technical support and fiscal oversight are my friends and colleagues in BRI’s Oxford
office: Cindy Rials and Ricky Douglas. Nicole Lubar and loveable Otto get high-fives for being
formatting gurus.
Of course I want to thank the magnanimous Barksdale brothers. I began my association with BRI
with the 2003-04 study, shortly after Claiborne became CEO. You recognized, then, what you
maintain today, that good reading instruction cannot happen without excellent teacher preparation. I
am enormously grateful for your friendship and perspicacity in this and many other mutual
endeavors.
Most of all, a deep genuflection to Jim Barksdale, who continues to believe in Mississippi’s
possibilities. You make good things happen here—especially for our youngest readers and the adults
who are called to teach them.
kab
December 2015
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
STATEWIDE REPORT
Contents
FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................................................ i
HIGHLIGHTS OF PERSPECTIVES AND RESEARCH INFLUENCING EARLY READING INSTRUCTION IN
TTHE UNITED STATES .............................................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF TERMS .......................................................................................................................................................viii
PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................................................ix
Tab 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 1
A. Current Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 1
B. Goal and Scope of the Study .................................................................................................................... 1
C. Instructional Minutes Spent Teaching Components of Reading .......................................................... 2
D. Nine Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 3
E. Three Big Ideas ........................................................................................................................................... 3
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Tab 2
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................. 5
A. Background ................................................................................................................................................. 5
B. Impetus ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
C. Organization of the Study Reports ........................................................................................................... 6
D. Comparison to Previous Teacher Prep Studies ...................................................................................... 6
PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................ 8
A. Four Key Questions Addressed by the Study ......................................................................................... 8
B. Study Team .................................................................................................................................................. 8
C. Scope of Study ............................................................................................................................................ 8
D. Courses Examined ...................................................................................................................................... 9
E. Review Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 9
F. Criteria for Course Reviews ...................................................................................................................... 11
G. Background and Limitations of Study Design ....................................................................................... 12
RESULTS OF THE STUDY : NINE KEY FINDINGS ...................................................................................... 14
STATEWIDE AGGREGATE DATA FOR EARLY LITERACY 1 & EARLY LITERACY 2 ............................... 33
A. Overview of Statewide Aggregate Data ................................................................................................ 33
B. How to Interpret the Data Tables in this Section ................................................................................... 33
C. Introduction to Statewide Aggregate Data ........................................................................................... 34
D. Overview of Tables for EL1 and EL2 Review ......................................................................................... 35
E. Tables for EL1 Review ............................................................................................................................... 35
F. Tables for EL2 Review ............................................................................................................................... 38
THE FOUR STUDY QUESTIONS ANSWERED ............................................................................................. 41
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
VI. BRINGING SCIENCE TO THE FOREFRONT OF LITERACY INSTRUCTION............................................ 46
A. Overview of this Section ........................................................................................................................... 46
B. Synthesis of Evidence-Based Best Practices in Early Literacy Instruction .......................................... 46
C. Balanced Literacy Revisited ..................................................................................................................... 53
D. The Conflict between Science and Practitioners .................................................................................. 59
VII. THREE BIG IDEAS .......................................................................................................................................... 62
VIII. GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 63
IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................................. 69
Tab 3
X. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................... 85
Tables
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
TABLE 7
TABLE 8
TABLE 9
TABLE 10
TABLE 11
TABLE 12
TABLE 13
TABLE 14
TABLE 15
Participating Institutions in the 2014-15 Study ............................................................................... 5
Scope and Size of the BRI/IHL Study ................................................................................................. 9
Summary of Guidelines Used by Study Team Based on Standards ........................................... 11
Avg # of Mins within Semester Courses Spent Learning to Teach Components of Reading . 18
Sample Chart to Illustrate Interpreting Data Tables for EL1 & EL2 Alignment ........................ 34
EL1 COURSE CONTENT Alignment to Intended Purpose & Research ...................................... 36
EL1 ASSIGNED TEXTBOOK READINGS Alignment to Intended Purpose & Research ........... 36
EL1 ASSIGNMENTS Alignment to Intended Purpose & Research.............................................. 37
EL1 EXAMS Alignment to Intended Purpose & Research ............................................................ 37
EL2 COURSE CONTENT Alignment to Intended Purpose & Research ..................................... 38
EL2 ASSIGNED TEXTBOOK READINGS Alignment to Intended Purpose & Research........... 39
EL2 ASSIGNMENTS Alignment to Intended Purpose & Research ............................................. 39
EL2 EXAMS Alignment to Intended Purpose & Research ........................................................... 40
EL1 Course Content Devoted to Administrative Tasks & Exams................................................ 40
EL2 Course Content Devoted to Administrative Tasks & Exams................................................ 40
Exhibits
EXHIBIT 1
Learner Snapshot - Statewide Results .......................................................................................... 28
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
FOREWORD
Teaching a child how to read is difficult under any circumstance. The challenge is significantly
greater, however, when the child enters the classroom lacking basic awareness of sound/symbol
correspondence, has a poor vocabulary, or does not know that print conveys meaning.
Unfortunately, this describes tens of thousands of children in Mississippi.
In 1999, when my late-wife, Sally, and I decided to create the Barksdale Reading Institute, we had
these children in mind.
We were persuaded at the time by the strong results of the Mississippi Reading Reform Model
(MRRM) pilot, which had been presented to us by then-State Superintendent, Richard Thompson.
The model was based on the landmark National Reading Panel recommendations for sequential,
systematic, scientifically-based reading instruction. It made sense to us.
Dr. Thompson asked us to partner with MDE to expand this model and to help accelerate change in
Mississippi literacy. And so, we committed $100 million to Mississippi’s effort, the largest private
literacy commitment in the nation's history.
In 2000, when the BRI master-level coaches began working in classrooms around the state, it quickly
became apparent to them that many Mississippi teachers possessed very little knowledge and skill
about how to teach reading, especially phonics. In addition, many did not subscribe to what the
science was telling us about explicit instruction in early literacy skills, in spite of what the landmark
studies had documented and the Mississippi Department of Education was advocating.
We found many teachers who thought that if they just asked children to look at the pictures and
draw inferences, or asked the children to "sound it out," or used various other techniques that
amounted, basically, to guessing, the child would over time figure it out for himself or herself. So in
2002, BRI commissioned a study of the pre-service programs at the eight public university schools of
education. That study—which Kelly Butler also conducted—showed that typical pre-service literacy
instruction was implemented in a scattershot way, including a smattering of phonics here and there.
Undergraduate education majors interviewed during the 2003 study said that they did not feel well
prepared to teach reading. Based on that study and with support from the Higher Education Literacy
Council, BRI petitioned the state board of education in 2003 to require two three-hour early literacybased courses—Early Literacy 1 and 2—to cover the five elements of reading identified by the
National Reading Panel: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.
The premise of that petition was to effect change in reading instruction by getting it right the first
time.
Now, twelve years later, thanks to the cooperation of all 15 of the public and private universities and
colleges and the support of the IHL, BRI has conducted another study to see how well the EL1 and
EL2 courses are being implemented and, consequently, how well new teachers are being prepared to
teach reading.
As you might expect, the results are mixed. BRI's team found definite improvement: greater focus on
the five essential components of reading and a better understanding that science must inform how
we teach, even if this is still not always being translated into practice.
There is still a great need for better course design, better course planning and coordination, more
modeling and demonstration by pre-service faculty, and opportunities to practice instructional
techniques by pre-service students.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
i
It seems obvious to me that a teacher preparation program should, as a matter of course, require that
all of its graduates demonstrate the ability to teach reading prior to graduation. It also appears from
this review that better and more current materials are available for teacher preparation programs.
I'm struck by how much of education is driven by the education publishing industry, which doesn't
always advance the best science.
At the risk of sounding tautological, the key to teaching children how to read is the teacher. And the
key to effective teachers is the professional training they receive. Just as children can't guess their
way to reading well, teachers can't guess their way to teaching well.
We hope—I hope—that everyone will take this report, give it the attention that it deserves, and then
work to implement the big ideas it lays out. It won't be easy and we understand that there will be
some resistance, but BRI stands ready to work with all of the various institutions to do our part.
Jim Barksdale
December 2015
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
ii
HIGHLIGHTS OF PERSPECTIVES AND RESEARCH
INFLUENCING EARLY READING INSTRUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES
1798
The American Spelling Book – Noah Webster
Promoted the synthetic phonics approach dominant in American classrooms at the turn of the century. Spelling
was taught before reading, and the focus was on spelling rules.
1826
Primer of the English Language – Samuel Worcester
Critical of alphabetics, represented first formulation of the word method. From Lesson I: “Let the teacher
remember, that a suitable portion for one lesson or exercise, is first to be read by the scholar, if the scholar can
read it ; if the scholar cannot read it, the teacher must read it until the scholar can do it. The letters of each word
are next to be learned, and the words to be carefully pronounced. The sense of the word is to be given, so far as it
can be.” (Worcester, circa 1826)
1836
Eclectic Readers – William McGuffey
A series of graded readers. Before McGuffey, reading was taught through spelling books (primarily Webster’s
books) in early grades, and “readers” were used for older children. The innovation from McGuffey was to use
short stories about children in familiar settings to teach beginning reading and to continue reading instruction in
the same series with grade-level texts. With the McGuffey series, the speller was supplanted by a reading
instruction text, and the spelling book assumed the role as the text for teaching spelling. (Smith, 2008)
1844
Report to the Massachusetts Board of Education – Horace Mann
Mann depicted letters as “skeleton-shaped, bloodless, ghostly apparitions” and encouraged teaching children to
read whole words. (Mann, 1844)
1896
The University School – John Dewey
Dewey, the father of progressive education in the U.S., promoted learning to read through experience. He wrote,
“It is one of the great mistakes of education to make reading and writing constitute the bulk of the school work the
first two years. The true way is to teach them incidentally as the outgrowth of the social activities at the time….”
(Dewey, 1896)
1925
Orton-Gillingham Approach to Teaching Reading – Samuel Orton & Anna Gillingham
Orton, a clinician and prominent dyslexia researcher, hypothesized that normally developing readers suppress the
visual images reported by the right hemisphere of the brain because these images could potentially interfere with
input from the left. In the1930s, Gillingham used Orton’s work to develop what became known as the OrtonGillingham multisensory approach to teaching reading. Initially targeted for dyslexic students, the explicit,
systematic approach used with Orton-Gillingham has proven to be successful not only with dyslexics but also with
ELL and the general population. Contemporary and sophisticated brain research has confirmed the efficacy of
explicit, systematic instruction through functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) technology. (Gillingham,
2014)
1929
“Dick and Jane” Reading Series – William Gray & Zerna Sharp
Gray and Sharp created the “Dick and Jane” reading program first published by Scott Foresman. Gray remained
involved with the program until 1956 when he became the first president of the International Reading Association
(now International Literacy Association) founded that same year. “Dick and Jane” books, or subsequent editions
that were renamed, were widely used to teach children to read from the 1930s until the 1970s. The books rely on
the whole word and sight word method, with much repetition of words throughout the series. (Gray, 1956)
1938
Literature as Exploration – Louise Rosenblatt
Influenced by Dewey, Rosenblatt makes the case that when constructing meaning the reader brings something
unique to the text and creates a “transaction” between reader and the text, thus yielding something entirely new.
Essentially, Rosenblatt promoted the right of readers to find their own meaning. Her views differ from the
conclusion of the RAND Study (RAND, 2002) where (1) comprehension is dependent on the text, the reader’s
background/existing knowledge, and the task of reading; and (2) meaning does not change based on the reader’s
schema. Rosenblatt’s theory also differs from Common Core State Standard’s (CCSS) viewpoint of constructing
meaning. The CCSS are based on finding evidence in the text to support findings from the reading. With both
Rand and CCSS, the text influences the reader, but the text is static, although the reader’s response can be
dynamic. (Rosenblatt, 1995)
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
iii
1955
Why Johnny Can’t Read and What You Can Do about It – Rudolph Flesch
Flesch’s popular book made the case that from the late 1920s until the early 1950s, the teaching of reading was
dominated by the whole word method, which is why reading scores were falling across the country. He
advocated a move back to phonics. (Flesch, 1993)
1966
Teaching to Read: Historically Considered – Mitford Mathews
Mathews’ writings reflect an early swing of the pendulum towards a code-emphasis approach. “The attitude of
professionals and laymen alike appears now to be more favorable than it once was to the conclusion that no
matter how a child is taught to read, he comes sooner or later to the strait gate and the narrow way: he has to
learn letters and the sounds for which they stand. There is no evidence whatever that he will ultimately do this
better from at first not doing it at all.” (Mathews, 1966)
1967
The Cooperative Research Program in First Grade Reading Instruction – Guy Bond & Robert Dykstra
A compilation of twenty-seven individual studies conducted during the 1964-67 school years to investigate
different early reading issues, including instructional approaches. It was one of the first in a series of U.S. national
reports to point to the advantage of using a code-emphasis in early reading instruction. (Bond & Dykstra, 1967)
1967
Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game – Kenneth Goodman
Goodman is generally credited with developing and promulgating the whole-language approach to reading
instruction in the U.S. In this article, he lays out the theoretical underpinnings of the whole language movement.
He advocates “word centered” (as opposed to “phonics centered”) approaches to early reading instruction in
which the emphasis is on constructing meaning. He refutes that reading “is a precise process [that] involves exact,
detailed, sequential perception and identification of letters, words, spelling patterns, and large language units.”
His use of the term “miscues” (as opposed to errors) when decoding, implies that the student was missing some
component of knowledge that causes his guess about the word to be incorrect. According to Goodman, “Skill in
reading involves not greater precision, but more accurate first guesses…” (Goodman, 1967)
1967
Learning to Read: The Great Debate – Jeanne Chall
An inquiry into the science, art, and ideology of old and new methods of teaching children to read from 1910 –
1965. The book is an attempt to bring consensus from research about how and when to begin reading instruction
and what to emphasize. Chall recommended a code-emphasis approach, but not exclusively. (Chall, 1967)
1980
Toward an Interactive-Compensatory Model of Individual Differences in the Development of
Reading Fluency – Keith Stanovich
A pivotal review of research examining three approaches to reading instruction: top-down, interactive, and
bottom-up. One major implication of this review is that a combination of general comprehension strategies and
rapid context-free word recognition are the most important differences between good and poor readers. This
conclusion is contrary to the “psycho-linguistic guessing game” theory that differences between good and poor
readers are based on individual differences in use of context to “guess” words with minimal attention to graphics
(letters and phonics). (Stanovich, 1980)
1983
A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, National Commission on Excellence in
Education – David Pierpont Gardner, Chair
A report by Ronald Reagan’s National Commission on Excellence in Education to investigate the perceived
national crisis from low levels of academic achievement among American students and the need for “world-class”
standards of learning. The report contributed to the assertion that American schools were failing and was the
impetus for efforts at local, state, and federal education reform. (National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983)
1985
Becoming a Nation of Readers, National Commission on Reading – Richard Anderson, Chair
Response to A Nation at Risk by the Center for the Study of Reading at University of Illinois. Four of the 17
recommendations in the report were:
• Teachers of beginning reading should present well-designed phonics instruction.
• Reading primers should be interesting, comprehensible, and give children opportunities to apply phonics.
• Teachers should devote more time to (direct) comprehension instruction.
• Teacher education programs should be lengthened and improved in quality. (Anderson, 1985)
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
iv
1986
Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability – Philip Gough & William Tunmer
Posits “The Simple View of Reading” (SVR) wherein reading comprehension can be predicted based on its
constituent skills of decoding and language. The SVR was proposed to scientifically resolve the primary issue
between reading ideologies which is whether accurate decoding skills are or are not necessary to achieve reading
comprehension. The SRV formula was shown to have high correlations by Gough & Hoover’s work in 1990, thus
providing evidence that accurate decoding is an essential component of reading comprehension. (Gough &
Tunmer, 1986)
1990
Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print – Marilyn Adams
This book originated from a Congressional mandate to appraise the place of phonics in teaching children to read.
Adams critically evaluated an enormous range of research and information in this highly readable book. Adams’
conclusion is that early reading instructional approaches that include code-based instruction result in “word
recognition and spelling skills that are significantly better than those that do not” and “comprehension skills that
are at least comparable to programs without code instruction.” Adams notes that this is the same conclusion Chall
drew 25 years earlier. She also concludes that evidence converges on the vital importance of instructing children
to understand the alphabetic principle. (Adams, 1990)
1995
Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children – Betty Hart & Todd
Risley
This seminal study identified the substantial word gap across socioeconomic status (SES) in pre-school children.
The study’s findings were astonishing. In the first four years of life, a child in a poverty-level family would have
been exposed to about 13 million words, in a working class family the number would be 26 million words, and in
a professional family the number would be almost 45 million words. By age 4, the average child in poverty might
have been exposed to 30 million fewer words than a child in a professional family. This study pointed to the
importance of a child’s pre-school experience and the urgent need for early intervention. (Hart & Risley, 1995)
1998
Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children – Committee on the Prevention of Reading
Difficulties in Young Children, Catherine Snow, Chair
Analysis and synthesis of partially convergent, and sometimes discrepant, research findings to provide an
integrated picture of how reading develops and how reading instruction should proceed. Although the focus is on
students with reading difficulties, recommendations offer insight into best ways to teach reading to all children in
preschool through grade 3. All members agreed “that the early reading instruction should include direct teaching
of information about sound-symbol relationships to children who do not know about them and that it must also
maintain a focus on the communicative purposes and personal value of reading. (Snow, 1998)
1998
Reading Excellence Act (REA)
A bipartisan coalition, including the U.S. Department of Education, the White House, and Congress agreed to
support scientific research in reading instruction. The REA provided competitive grants to states to improve
reading skills of students and the instructional practices of teachers of reading by using the findings from
“scientifically-based reading research.”
2000
Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read
A 14 member panel (including a Mississippian) commissioned by Congress conducted a rigorous assessment of
evidence-based research studies concerning the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching reading in the
areas of alphabetics (phonemic awareness instruction and phonics instruction), fluency, and comprehension
(vocabulary instruction, text comprehension instruction, and teacher preparation and comprehension strategies
instruction). The goal was to provide an authoritative synthesis and analysis that would summarize scientificallybased research findings to inform classroom instruction. The NRP findings included:
• Teaching children to manipulate phonemes in words was highly effective and signficiantly improves their
reading more than instruction that lacks attention to PA.
• Systematic phonics instruction produces significant benefits for students in grades K-6 and for struggling
readers. Systematic, synthetic phonics instruction specifically positively affects disabled readers and lowachieving students who are not disabled.
• Guided oral repeated reading procedures that include guidance from teachers, peers, or parents had a
significant and positive impact on word recognition, fluency, and comprehension across a range of grade
levels.
• Vocabulary should be taught both directly and indirectly. Repetition and multiple exposures to vocabulary
items are important. Depending on a single vocabulary instruction method will not result in optimal learning.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
v
• Teaching a combination of reading comprehension techniques is most effective.” However, “questions
remain as to which strategies are most effective for which age groups.
• In order for teachers to use strategies effectively, extensive formal instruction in reading comprehension is
necessary, preferably beginning as early as pre-service. (National Reading Panel, 2000)
2001
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001
NCLB is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which supports standards-based
education reform and requires any school that receives federal funding to give assessments to all students at
certain grade levels. Reading First is the part of NCLB that provided aid to schools with disadvantaged students in
grades K-3. Schools receiving Reading First funds were required to use a portion of their funds to provide
professional development to teachers on the five essential components of reading instruction and to offer
scientifically-based instruction and assessment in the following areas: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and comprehension. These have become commonly known as the “five essential components of
reading.” (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001)
2001
A Meta-Analysis of Studies Examining the Effect of Whole Language Instruction on the Literacy of
Low-SES Students – William Jeynes & Stephen Littell
This meta-analysis of 14 studies examining whether whole language instruction increases the reading skills of lowSES students in grades K-3 concluded that they do not benefit from whole language instruction when it is
compared to basal instruction. The report cited as problematic the difficulty in gaining consensus on the varying
definitions of the whole language approach, even, among its advocates. (Jeynes & Littell, 2000)
2001
Connecting Early Language and Literacy to Later Reading (Dis)abilities: Evidence, Theory, and
Practice – Hollis Scarborough
Conceptualizes the “Reading Rope” to illustrate the interactive strands of skilled reading:
• Word Recognition: phonological awareness, decoding, sight recognition
• Language Comprehension: background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning,
literacy knowledge. (Scarborouth, 2001)
2002
Reading for Understanding, RAND Reading Study Group – Catherine Snow, Chair
Funded by Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), the RAND Study Group, constructed a
national framework for research in reading comprehension to build on existing evidence. The 3-part heuristic for
defining comprehension as: reader, text, and activity was conceptualized in this study. RAND proposed three key
areas for additional research: instruction, teacher preparation, and assessment. (Snow, 2002)
2003
Overcoming Dyslexia – Sally Shaywitz, M.D.
Dr. Shaywitz draws on recent scientific breakthroughs to explain how children can become good readers and why
children have reading difficulties. She addresses why everyone speaks, but not everyone reads and how it is that
some smart people cannot read. Although the book’s title indicates a focus on dyslexia, Dr. Shaywitz includes
important information about the best evidence-based instruction to teach all children to decode. (Shaywitz,
2003)
2008
Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) – Timothy Shanahan,
Chair
Funded by the National Center for Literacy, the report was a synthesis of the scientific research on the
development of early literacy skills in children ages zero to five. The primary goal of the report was to identify
interventions, parenting activities, and instructional practices that promote language and literacy in young
children. The report emphasized (a) the importance of early skills to later reading and spelling and (b) the
statistically significant effect of code-emphasis on children’s literacy skills. (NICHD, 2008)
2009
Reading in the Brain: The New Science of How We Read – Stanislas Dehaene
Dr. Dehaene is a neuroscientist who explains how children learn to read, and why some children don’t, based on
findings from neuroscience and the wealth of brain-imaging research that has explored what the brain does when
it reads. He takes issue with whole language because it is counter to how the brain is wired to process written
language. (Dehaene, 2009)
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
vi
2013
The Science of Reading and Its Educational Implications – Mark Seidenberg
An attempt to answer the question: “If the science is so good, why do so many people read so poorly?” The
author considers three possible factors and draws several important conclusions:
1) The fact that English has a deep alphabetic orthography is not a factor in why so many people read so poorly because other
English speaking countries score much higher than the U.S. on international reading assessments.
2) How reading is taught is a factor in which so many people read so poorly, and the reason is that many colleges of education
train teachers based on theories that evidence-based research does not support.
3) The impact of linguistic variability as manifested in the Black-White achievement gap needs to be examined further, but the
evidence points toward this variability being a factor. (Seidenberg, 2013)
# # #
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
vii
LIST OF TERMS
ACEI – Association of Childhood Education International
BRI – The Barksdale Reading Institute
CAEP – Council for the Accreditation of Educator Professionals
DIBELS – Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
EL1 – Early Literacy 1
EL2 – Early Literacy 2
ELL – English Language Learners
ESEA – Elementary and Secondary Education Act
HELC – Higher Education Literacy Council
IDA – International Dyslexia Association
IES – Institute of Education Sciences
IHL – Institution of Higher Learning
ILA – International Literacy Association (formerly IRA)
INTASC – Interstate New Teacher and Support Consortium
IRA – International Reading Association (renamed ILA)
IRI – Informal Reading Inventory
ITSE – International Society for Technology in Education
LBPA – Literacy-Based Promotion Act
LETRS – Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling
MCCRS – Mississippi College and Career-Ready Standards
MDE – Mississippi Department of Education
M-STAR - Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric
NAEd – National Academy of Education
NAEP – National Assessment of Educational Progress
NCATE – National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
NCLB – No Child Left Behind
NICHD – National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development
NRP – National Reading Panel
NCTQ – National Center for Teacher Quality
OERI – Office of Educational Research
RAND – Research and Development (Corporation)
REA – Reading Excellence Act
RtI – Response to Intervention
SES – Socioeconomic Status
SPA – Specialized Professional Association
SVR – Simple View of Reading
TIAI – Teacher Intern Assessment Instrument
TPP – Teacher Preparation Programs
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
viii
PREFACE
Greatness is not a function of circumstance. Greatness, it turns out, is largely a matter of
conscious choice.
Good to Great
Jim Collins (2001)
Jim Barksdale once told me “If FedEx can get a package from the middle of Manhattan to the middle
of Tokyo in forty-eight hours, track it along the way, and guarantee its timely delivery, then we ought
to be able to teach every child in Mississippi to read.” I believe him.
I also believe that the Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs) should be at the forefront of change that
will teach every child in Mississippi to read. This report is meant to focus attention on the role that
teacher preparation can and must play in lifting Mississippi off the bottom of reported reading scores
and moving us upward as rapidly as possible.
I am privileged to have undertaken this review of teacher preparation for early literacy instruction in
Mississippi on behalf of The Barksdale Reading Institute and in collaboration with the Commissioner
for the IHL.
I want readers to know that I have approached this work with an appreciation for the history of
reading education and the disparate views about reading research and pedagogy in the United
States. I am aware these differing opinions persist.
However, best practices for early literacy instruction have been soundly established in the large body
of scientific studies on reading over the past 30+ years. This is golden.
Given the low performance of Mississippi students and the difficulty in recruiting and retaining
talented teachers, my desire is that the information from this study will prompt changes in pre-service
and in-service programs to better meet the demands of teaching in our mostly rural and high-poverty
state.
Mississippi is positioned to consciously choose a radically different course of action for teacher
preparation. Our systems are not large. Our ranking is at the bottom. And evidence-based practice
marks a clear path forward.
Therefore, I urge you to examine the body of scientific research about reading instruction and I bid
everyone invested in Mississippi’s literacy to take bold and necessary actions. For, if our reading
instruction is not grounded in the science, our children will continue to fail at alarming rates.
I fully honor the educators who have participated in this study. You have been generous with your
time, shared perspectives candidly, and opened your classrooms for scrutiny. I invite you to
consider the observations reported here for their accuracy and alignment to the science, the
standards, and best practice.
Finally, I want you to know that though there is always margin for error in reviews such as these, our
team has acted in good faith. We stand ready to support all efforts to accelerate the work to get
reading instruction right for the children and future of Mississippi.
Kelly Butler
Jackson, Mississippi
December 2015
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
ix
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early-Literacy Instruction
A Project of The Barksdale Reading Institute (BRI) and The Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A.
Current Conditions
Mississippi continues to rank last or near bottom on national measures of reading achievement. The
Mississippi Department of Education (MDE), the public schools, the State Legislature, and the
Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs) can change this unacceptable reality. Research marks an
unambiguous path to effective reading instruction. We must choose this path.
The State Legislature has taken significant steps toward improving children’s reading achievement.
In 2012 they enacted programming to improve reading instruction for students with specific learning
disabilities, including dyslexia. In 2013, they passed the Literacy-based Promotion Act (LBPA) to
ensure students were reading on grade level by the end of third grade.
In the LBPA’s first year, the MDE placed reading coaches in the lowest performing schools across the
state to help schools improve the teaching of reading. An increasing number of coaches has
extended support to more schools each year. The LBPA also instituted intensive research-based
professional development for in-service teachers and made this available to university professors of
literacy.
These measures have introduced scientifically-based structured literacy into our public schools. The
IHLs are charged with bringing this science to the next generation of reading teachers.
B.
Goal and Scope of the Study
This report by the Barksdale Reading Institute (BRI) focuses on the critical role Mississippi’s teacher
preparation programs must play to realize the goal of reading proficiency in the early grades. That
critical role is to improve the initial preparation of new teachers. This study replicates one
completed by BRI in 2003, which prompted licensure changes for elementary education majors.
The goal of this study was to determine whether Mississippi’s IHLs are adequately preparing preservice teacher candidates to effectively teach reading when they enter their elementary classrooms.
Since 2003, MDE licensure has required two early-literacy courses (Early Literacy 1/EL1 and Early
Literacy 2/EL2) in undergraduate elementary education programs. The purpose of the mandated
courses was to ensure that pre-service candidates learned evidence-based practices documented by
the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) for literacy instruction in five essential areas of reading:
phonological/phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, plus writing.
Over the course of 18 months, the BRI study team reviewed the required reading course sequence at
each of the 15 public and private colleges and universities in Mississippi during the 2014-15
academic year with a particular focus on EL1 and EL2. This table summarizes the scope of the study.
It is noted that IHL participation in the study was voluntary.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
1
Scope and Size of the BRI/IHL Study
Deans and
Faculty
Interviewed
from 23*
IHL sites
Syllabi
Reviewed
119
83
Textbooks
Reviewed
Pre-service
Candidates
Surveyed in
20 Focus
Groups
Pre-service
Classes
Observed
Recent Graduates
and Student
Interns Observed
Teaching in K-5
Settings
Principals in
Partner Schools
in 15 Districts
Interviewed
45
149
71
58
24
*There are fifteen public and private institutions of higher learning. Of these fifteen, six have one or
more satellite campuses, totaling 23 individual sties within Mississippi. Our review included visits to
all fifteen main campuses, plus visits to seven of the eight satellites. Discrete syllabi of early literacy
courses were reviewed for eighteen sites.
C.
Instructional Minutes Spent Teaching Components of Reading
Since the 2003 BRI pre-service study of early literacy in the eight public teacher preparation
programs, the five essential components of reading instruction have become an integral part of
elementary education preparation throughout the state. This trend is significant and positive.
The table below highlights the statewide averages for the number of minutes devoted specifically to
learning how to teach and assess these essential components. To put this in context, a typical
semester course has approximately 2,450 minutes for EL1 and 2,750 minutes for EL2. Each of the
averages in the table below shows the number of instructional minutes within a typical semester
course that are focused on learning how to teach a particular component. These minutes only tell
part of the story, obviously, but they serve as a solid baseline upon which to build a better preservice program.
Note: The review found that, on average, EL2 courses had more instructional time allocated than for EL1. This
did not appear to be intentional, nor was any rationale provided. It may have been a function of
variable length in fall and spring semesters and number of holidays.
Average Number of Minutes within Semester Courses of EL1 and EL2
Spent Learning to Teach These Components of Reading
EL 1 MINUTES
EL2 MINUTES
Alphabetic
Knowledge
Phonological and
Phonemic Awareness
Explicit
Phonics
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
54 mins.
150 mins.
282 mins.
114 mins.
154 mins.
329 mins.
Out of approximately 2,450 total
minute
instructional minutes in a semester of EL1
20% of course time
Out of approximately 2,750 total instructional
minutes in a semester of EL2
22% of course time
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
2
D.
Nine Key Findings
The nine key findings from the study are:
E.
Finding 1.
The five essential components of reading instruction are the primary focus of all
teacher preparation literacy programs through the state-mandated courses.
Finding 2.
The structure and content of early-literacy courses are inconsistent across the state.
Finding 3.
Established research-based principles of early-literacy instruction remain largely
unapplied in preparation and practice.
Finding 4.
“Balanced Literacy”—as interpreted by Mississippi teacher preparation programs and
in many K-3 classrooms—has resulted in widespread use of practices that are not
supported by research.
Finding 5.
High standards for learning have become the norm in early literacy and in teacher
preparation.
Finding 6.
Opportunities to observe instruction being modeled, followed by opportunities to
practice, are insufficient for developing entry-level skills for teaching.
Finding 7.
Time in the field associated with early-literacy instruction has increased significantly.
Finding 8.
Most programs now offer a distinct assessment course, usually specific to assessing
reading difficulties.
Finding 9.
Writing as a component of literacy is inadequately addressed.
Three Big Ideas
Mississippi is a small state with only 15 traditional-route teacher preparation programs. MDE is fully
engaged in K-3 literacy efforts and the Legislature appears keen to ensure that the literacy challenges
that keep us at the bottom of all reading measures are conquered. The interrelated tasks among the
various players are complex, but the road map for IHLs is clearly marked. All of us entrusted with
preparing Mississippi’s teachers of literacy are urged to consider Three Big Ideas.
Big Idea #1 ADOPT RESEARCH-BASED PRACTICES AT EVERY LEVEL OF READING EDUCATION
a) Establish research-based principles and practices in core reading courses at all 15 IHLs.
b) Focus pre-service course core content on explicit, systematic instruction for all five essential
components, plus writing, rather than on the balanced literacy approach which is more
implicit and less systematic.
c) Expand and apply knowledge of research-based practices so that teacher preparation
instructors, literacy coaches, and K-3 classroom teachers all incorporate research-based
approaches to instruction.
d) Develop and apply stringent standards for state accreditation of teacher preparation programs
to require application of research-based methods in the 15-hour reading sequence.
Big Idea #2 BRING CONSISTENCY TO EARLY-LITERACY COURSE CONTENT AND DELIVERY IN
ALL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS
a) At the pre-service level use established research-based methods to teach all essential
components of literacy including writing, and teach skills in assessment and intervention.
b) Develop pre-service core content for EL1 and EL2 course schedules, including a common set of
required readings.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
3
c) Develop pre-service textbook guidelines and adoption policies that insure research-based
content.
d) Incorporate regular and frequent modeling of effective practices in undergraduate courses,
including using a core of approved video demonstrations of research-based instruction.
e) Develop a statewide network of “laboratory classrooms” in the K-3 system with skilled, paid
mentor teachers for fieldwork and practice teaching.
f) Ensure impact of pre-service candidates’ practice of teaching and assessing all early-literacy
skills by developing a core set of assignments for fieldwork.
g) Require demonstration of proficiencies in literacy instruction as a requirement for graduation
from an elementary education program.
Big Idea #3 DIRECTLY INVOLVE EDUCATORS IN SHAPING POLICY AND PRACTICE
a) Amend LBPA to increase intentional planning and collaboration among literacy education
policymakers and practitioners by expanding the State Reading Panel to include representation
from IHL Deans, early-literacy instructors, literacy coaches, mentor teachers, partner district
principals, and other literacy experts. Expanded functions to include:
• Designing a credentialing process for instructors of EL1 and EL2, with all instructors
required to obtain early literacy credential by 2020.
• Developing a set of Evidenced-based Literacy Instruction Principles to guide all preservice teacher training, in-service professional development (including external
providers), K-3 coaching, and literacy instruction in Mississippi.
• Organizing and monitoring the execution of Big Idea #2.
• Proactively advising the legislature and the MDE on all policy and other issues related to
early literacy.
b) Revise the State’s program accreditation process to ensure consistent application of high
standards in elementary education programs that will support full implementation of
evidence-based practices in early literacy instruction.
For more information about the Study or to download a copy of the Statewide Report, visit our
website at www.msreads.org.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
4
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
The Barksdale Reading Institute (BRI), in collaboration with the Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs),
conducted this study from mid 2014 through mid 2015. This 2014-2015 Study is a review of the
traditional route teacher preparation programs for early literacy instruction (defined as reading and
writing). All 15 of Mississippi’s colleges, listed in Table 1, voluntarily participated in the study, and
there was a spirit of cooperation and transparency across the board.
TABLE 1
Participating Institutions in the 2014-15 Study
8 Public Institutions
7 Private Institutions
Alcorn State University
Belhaven University
Delta State University
Blue Mountain College
Jackson State University
Millsaps College
Mississippi State University
Mississippi College
Mississippi University for Women
Rust College
Mississippi Valley State University
Tougaloo College
University of Mississippi
William Carey University
University of Southern Mississippi
This 2014-2015 Study is an update of a similar study conducted by BRI in 2002-2003 in which the
early literacy courses at the eight public universities were reviewed. The 2002-2003 Study found
that pre-literacy courses, on average, included about twenty minutes of instruction on how to teach
phonics. This finding was of concern because the National Reading Panel in 2000 published a
meta-analysis of research showing that phonics is one of the five essential components of effective
reading instruction.
The most important impact of the 2002-2003 Study was that the State Board of Education mandated
six hours of instruction in the essential components of early literacy as a requirement for certification
in elementary education.
All 15 pre-service programs in Mississippi have offered the mandated six hours since 2003 in courses
called Early Literacy 1 (EL1) and Early Literacy 2 (EL2). These courses are part of the 15-hour reading
requirement and are based on a prototype for the course descriptions and objectives prepared by the
Higher Education Literacy Council (HELC). The purpose of EL1 is to prepare pre-service candidates
to teach and assess Oral Language (as it pertains to phonology), Concepts of Print, Phonological
Awareness, and Phonics. The purpose of EL2 is preparation for teaching and assessing Oral
Language (as it pertains to meaning), Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension, plus Writing.
B. Impetus
Mississippi students consistently rank among the lowest five states on the 4th grade National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scores. This trend in low performance prompted
the passing of the Literacy-based Promotion Act (LBPA). (The LBPA legislation is informally called
“3rd Grade Gate”) in 2013. This legislation created a laser focus on how to improve early reading
instruction in Mississippi’s public elementary schools.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
5
Improving pre-service teacher preparation for early literacy instruction is one of the most expedient
ways to effect improvement in reading instruction in our elementary schools. Thus, it seemed an
appropriate time to revisit the quality and efficacy of teacher preparation for early literacy instruction
to determine (a) specifically if EL1 and EL2 courses are being taught as intended and (b) generally
whether teacher preparation programs are preparing graduates to teach reading by the time they
enter a K-3 classroom as certified teachers.
C. Organization of the Study Reports
The study is presented in two types of reports: this Statewide Report and 15 confidential reports, one
for each of the 15 institutions that participated in the study.
This Statewide Report is a public document available for review by all interested parties. No specific
information about any individual institution is included in the Statewide Report. The individual
report for each IHL is confidential and will be given only to the education Dean at each IHL and to
the Commissioner of Higher Education.
D. Comparison to Previous Teacher Prep Studies
Placing serious and sustained teacher learning at the center of school reform is a radical
idea. It challenges dominant views of teaching and learning to teach. It calls for a major
overhaul in provisions for teacher preparation, induction, and continuing development.
It requires capacity building at all levels of the system. No one should underestimate
the depth or scope of the agenda.
Preparation to Practice: Designing a Continuum to Strengthen and Sustain Teaching
Feiman-Nemser, 2001
A number of studies evaluating teacher preparation programs have been conducted previously in
order to examine and improve teacher preparation. These include self-evaluations such as the report
of the Holmes Group Trilogy (Holmes, 1986), Preparing Teachers for a Changing World (Snow,
2005), Arthur Levine’s The Education Schools Project four-part study (Levine, 2006), and the
International Literacy Association’s current Task Force on Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy
Instruction (ILA, 2015).
Others studies have contributed to the higher education system critique as well. A Nation at Risk
(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) urged recruitment of academically stronger
candidates. The National Academy of Education (NAEd) undertook a review of program
accreditation and teacher evaluation systems (2013). And most recently, the National Center on
Teacher Quality lobbed a strong attack on “this lack of basic professional consensus and disregard
for research (NCTQ revised, 2015).”
When preparing to conduct this study, we were mindful of these efforts and sought to contribute
something different and deeper. Our intent was to focus only on early literacy courses. We looked
closely at how well research-based approaches are taught and how field experiences reflect
research-based approaches.
Therefore, the BRI study included a wide swath of course observations at all 15 IHLs and detailed
interviews with students in the teacher prep programs and with recent graduates. We also
interviewed all professors of courses observed, and mentor teachers and principals in partner schools
across the state.
To be clear, this review of Mississippi’s teacher preparation for early literacy instruction is not
intended to be a public evaluation or ranking of programs. Rather, the study team sought to offer
IHLs in Mississippi an objective examination of teacher preparation for early reading in order to
make recommendations for improvement. Importantly, the review of all courses and the basis of all
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
6
recommendations are to be based on what is irrefutable and or/convergent in best practices of
reading instruction based on scientific research.
It is also important to state that this study was not intended to assess accreditation compliance nor
are those who conducted the study qualified to assess accreditation compliance. Rather, the study
team sought to gauge effectiveness of early literacy preparation content and delivery based on (a)
subsets of standards of recognized accrediting bodies and specialized professional associations
(SPAs) and (b) research on the science of reading.
BRI regards this study as a reflection by critical friends who want to address the urgent need to
improve the reading skills of our children in Mississippi. Indeed, we count ourselves within the
collective needed to address the state’s literacy challenges, and we offer our assistance with any and
all recommendations in this report.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
7
II. PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY
This study had two primary purposes. First was to examine the degree to which the EL1 and EL2
courses are meeting the intent of the 2003 mandate. EL1 is intended to teach best practices for oral
language (as it relates to phonology), concepts of print, phonemic awareness, and phonics. EL 2 is
intended to teach best practices for oral language (as it relates to meaning), fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension, plus writing.
The second purpose was to determine whether the core early literacy courses (within and beyond
the 15-hour reading requirement) are sufficiently preparing teachers to deliver effective, researchbased instruction in the five essential components of reading plus writing by the time they enter their
own K-3 classroom. The five essential components of reading, based on evidence from scientific
studies, as described in the Report of the National Reading Panel (2000) are: phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
A. Four Key Questions Addressed by the Study
The study addresses four key questions, each about a different area related to early literacy
instruction.
Literacy Content as Intended by Licensure
1
Do the EL1 and EL2 courses meet the intent of the licensure requirement to strengthen early
literacy instruction?
Knowledge and Skill to Deliver Effective Instruction
2
Do the early literacy courses sufficiently equip pre-service candidates with the foundational
knowledge and practical skills required to deliver effective reading instruction in K–3 on “day
one”?
Adequate Course and Program Scope and Sequence
3
Are there gaps or duplications in the scope, sequence, and content of early literacy courses that
might prevent efficient and sufficient preparation for early literacy instruction?
Exposure to Evidence-Based Practice
4
Are pre-service candidates exposed to pedagogy (in class and in the field) that reflects best
practices supported by current and evidenced-based literacy-related research?
B. Study Team
The qualitative study was completed by an eight-member team led by Kelly Butler, BRI’s Director of
Program Strategy. Dr. Susan Lee, Associate Commissioner for Academic and Student Affairs, served
as a liaison to the IHL Commissioner.
C. Scope of Study
The broad scope of the review included analyzing syllabi, observing pre-service courses, and
conducting interviews. This scope is shown in Table 2 on the next page.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
8
TABLE 2
Scope and Size of the BRI/IHL Study
Deans and
Faculty
Interviewed
from 23*
IHL sites
Syllabi
Reviewed
119
83
Textbooks
Reviewed
Pre-service
Candidates
Surveyed in
20 Focus
Groups
Pre-service
Classes
Observed
Recent Graduates
and Student
Interns Observed
Teaching in the
K-3 Setting
Principals in
Partner Schools
in 15 Districts
Interviewed
45
149
71
58
24
*There are fifteen public and private institutions of higher learning. Of these fifteen, six have one or
more satellite campuses, totaling 23 individual sties within Mississippi. Our review included visits to
all fifteen main campuses, plus visits to seven of the eight satellites. Discrete syllabi of early literacy
courses were reviewed for eighteen sites.
D. Courses Examined
The study included an extensive examination of EL1 and EL2 courses at each of the fifteen
institutions across twenty-one campuses. Other core literacy courses were reviewed at all
institutions, with two purposes in mind. First, to determine if content from other courses overlapped
with content taught in EL1 and EL2. Second, to identify if there were gaps in the overall content
taught for early reading instruction. For all literacy courses outside EL1 and EL2, syllabi were
reviewed when provided, and, in some cases, courses were observed and professors interviewed.
E. Review Methods
Steps Taken to Conduct the Study
1. Confidential Interviews with Deans – Before reviewing any of the materials or observing any
courses, Kelly Butler conducted a confidential interview with the dean of education and the
department chair for overseeing the early literacy courses. The purpose of the interviews was to
explain and discuss the study, to glean their perspectives about early literacy, and to listen to any
concerns prior to moving forward.
2. Review of Materials – Every school provided materials to be reviewed for the study. Most or all
of the following materials for the EL1 and EL2 courses were provided and reviewed.
• Syllabus
•
Course outline
•
Textbooks and other assigned readings
•
Student assignments
•
Exams
Some or all of the above materials were reviewed in other early literacy courses at all 15 IHLs.
3. Class Observations – One or more EL1 and EL2 classes were observed at each institution, with
two exceptions due to scheduling. At 12 institutions, classes for some other early literacy
courses were observed. Typically, these additional classes observed included an assessment
course and a language arts methods course. Guidelines for pre-service and K-3 class
observations were based on research on adult learning theory, organizing for instruction,
principles of undergraduate teaching, and on standards from Interstate New Teacher And
Support Consortium (INTASC) and Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR).
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
9
4. Student Intern Observations and Interviews – Whenever possible, student interns in K-3 were
observed in their practicum classrooms and interviewed after the observations. Mentor teachers
and principals were also interviewed.
5. Faculty Interviews – Confidential interviews were held with all professors who taught the classes
that were observed. Field placement coordinators were interviewed wherever possible.
6. Group Interviews with Pre-Service Candidates – Confidential group interviews with pre-service
candidates who were juniors or seniors were held at all institutions, with one exception due to
scheduling. In all cases, focus group participants were selected by the dean or department chair.
7. Recent Graduates – Teachers who had graduated within the last five years were observed
teaching in the K-3 setting and interviewed after the observations. Principals at these schools
were also interviewed. In most cases, names of recent graduates were provided by the dean or
department chair. In some cases the study team was not able to schedule observations with
some individuals on the lists provided by the IHLs. In several cases, other graduates (whose
names had not been provided by the IHL) were identified during the course of our visits across
the state. These graduates participated voluntarily and with permission by their principals.
Guidelines Based on Recognized Standards
The study team developed a set of guidelines they followed to conduct the course reviews. The
guidelines are based on an internally developed set of standards related to reading that are taken
from the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), International Reading
Association (IRA), the Association of Early Childhood Instruction (AECI), the Interstate New Teacher
and Support Consortium (INTASC), the International Dyslexia Association (IDA), and the
International Society for Technology in Education (ITSE).
A summary of the guidelines used by the study team can be found in Table 3 on the next page. The
complete set of standards from these multiple sources appears in Appendix E.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
10
TABLE 3
Summary of Internal Guidelines Used by Study Team
Based on CAEP, IRA, ACEI, INTASC, IDA and ITSE Standards
Both EL1 and EL2
General knowledge and
research about reading,
writing, and oral language
Dyslexia and other reading
disorders
English Language Learners
Learning environments that
support literacy instruction
Curriculum materials and
instruction specific to early
literacy content
Opportunities for practice
specific to early literacy
instruction
General assessments that
inform literacy instruction
Appropriate use of
technology/media to
support instruction
Specific to EL1
Specific to EL2
General knowledge and research about EL1
content
General knowledge and research
about EL2 content
Instructional strategies for teaching and
assessing:
• Oral Language (as it relates to phonology)
• Concepts of Print and Book Awareness
• Letter Names and Letter Sounds
• Phonological and Phonemic Awareness
• High Frequency Words with Non-phonetic
Spellings.
• Explicit Phonics: decoding, spelling
• Embedded Phonics
Instructional strategies for teaching
and assessing:
• Oral Language (as it relates to
meaning)
• Fluency
• Vocabulary
• Comprehension
• Writing
Specific assessments that inform instruction in
concepts of print, phonological and phonemic
awareness, and phonics.
Specific technologies to support instruction in
concepts of print, letter names and sounds,
phonological and phonemic awareness,
phonics, and high frequency words.
Specific assessments that inform
instruction in fluency, vocabulary,
comprehension, and writing.
Specific technologies for
supporting instruction in fluency,
vocabulary, comprehension, and
writing.
F. Criteria for Course Reviews
General Criteria
Generally, the criteria used for course reviews included:
• Alignment with professional standards
• Alignment with HELC recommended EL1 and EL2 course descriptions and goals
• Alignment with the research base for the intended course content
• Modeling of effective early literacy instruction in the course
• Quality of fieldwork
• Quality of texts and other readings
• Quality of assignments and exams
Learner Snapshots
Learner Snapshots were used as a guide for observing classes. Individual Learner Snapshots were
completed for each course based on observation notes and are included in the confidential,
individual institutional reports. An aggregate of Learner Snapshots is included in Section IV of this
Statewide Report.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
11
The items included in the Learner Snapshot were based on the principles of good practice for
undergraduate education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987); research-based principles for how learning
works (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010); and practical guides for organizing
instruction (IES, 2007). These principles and practices include: emphasizing time on task, goaldirected practice, giving prompt feedback, encouraging active learning, combining graphics with
verbal descriptions, developing mastery by integrating and applying component skills, quizzing to
promote learning.
Stringent Criteria for Reviewing EL1 and EL2 Content
EL1 and EL2 are well defined with the purpose of adequately preparing teachers with knowledge and
instructional strategies for assessing and teaching the five essential components of reading, plus
writing. Therefore, during this review, only materials or portions of classes observed that were
related to the specific purpose of EL1 or EL2 were considered as appropriate content. Anything else
was flagged as “outside the scope and sequence of the course”, even though the information may be
relevant to elementary education majors in general.
The review was also stringent in its approach to assessing whether or not sufficient time is devoted to
research, methodology, assessment, and practice in essential components of reading defined for EL1
and EL2 courses. If the skills required for EL1 or EL2 were included in any other courses at an
institution, they were not considered to be a substitute for teaching the appropriate skills in EL1 and
EL2. Where EL1 and EL2 are separate courses, content relevant to EL2 that is taught in E1 was
flagged as “outside the scope and sequence of the course”, and vice versa. For blocked versions of
EL1 and EL2, content was evaluated based on equity and alignment within the schedule.
G. Background and Limitations of Study Design
Review of Syllabi and Textbooks
Within the context of teacher preparation program evaluations, we were aware of the limitations of
drawing conclusions based solely on review of syllabi and textbooks. These limitations are
explained well by Feurer, Floden, Chudowsky, & Ahn:
…syllabi alone provide limited estimates of program quality given that some materials in
the formal written syllabus may not get taught and material not included in the syllabus
may actually be taught. Textbook content is also examined, but again, just because
certain material appears in a textbook does not mean it will be covered or emphasized
by the instructor. The intended curriculum is what students are supposed to learn as laid
out in syllabi and textbooks, whereas the enacted curriculum refers to the content
actually delivered during instruction and how it is taught (McKnight et al, 1987; Schmidt,
McKnight, Cogan, Jakwerth, and Houang, 1999). This distinction is germane to
discussions about the validity and reliability of using evidence from syllabi and other
course materials in TPP evaluations.
Feuer, et al, National Academy of Education, 2013
A course syllabus should reflect relevant and intended content. Course observations, along with
interviews of student, faculty, pre-service candidates, and recent graduates should provide insight
into the enacted curriculum.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
12
We designed this study to include a combination of: (a) reviews of syllabi, texts, and other course
materials; (b) first-hand course observations; and (c) personal interviews. Quotes from pre-service
students, faculty, and K-3 professionals are used to illustrate key findings and corroborate key
findings from multiple sources. The quotes are rendered anonymously.
We are confident that this combination of study and reporting methods has provided a reasonably
reliable set of data for identifying possible gaps in Mississippi’s 15 IHL traditional route programs
with regard to preparing pre-service candidates to teach and assess the five essential components of
reading, plus writing.
A Focus on Traditional Route Programs
It is important to note that, due to time and resources, the study included only traditional route
programs for elementary education majors obtaining K-3 or K-6 licenses. It is recognized that
professionals enter our K-3 classrooms through a variety of preparation programs (e.g. Teach for
America) and certification routes (e.g., special education, early childhood education).
The quality and capacity of these other programs preparing teachers of reading should also be
reviewed for their scientific basis of instruction.
As of this writing both traditional and alternate route elementary education majors must pass the
state-mandated Foundations of Literacy test to be certified. It has not been determined if those who
follow alternative route preparation are required by their institutions to take EL1 and EL2, but this
should be considered.
What Constitutes Ideal?
Based on the consensus of scientific research about effective early literacy instruction, it is
reasonable to make recommendations about types and concentrations of content for EL1 and EL2
courses. It is also reasonable to evaluate whether the content and presentation within the context of
a semester course are supported by research.
The study team acknowledges that educational research has not been conducted to define what
constitutes the ideal number of minutes of direct preparation for early literacy. Therefore, there are
study limitations that prevent us from recommending, for example, a specific number of minutes for
teaching undergraduates about how to teach vocabulary or how to teach phonics.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
13
III. RESULTS OF THE STUDY : NINE KEY FINDINGS
The Nine Key Findings
There are nine key findings from the study. The Findings are numbered and appear in boldface type.
Commentary about each Finding appears in paragraphs within that section. Bullets (Ÿ) in this section
provide concrete examples and supporting evidence of each Finding. Recommendations related to
these Findings are reported in Section V of this document under The Four Study Questions
Answered.
Note: Quotes from pre-service candidates, recent graduates, and faculty are included in this report as a way to
illustrate that key findings are supported by multiple perspectives and sources. These quotes are
reported anonymously, as interviews were confidential.
Finding #1. The five essential components of reading instruction are the primary focus of all
fifteen traditional route teacher preparation programs in early literacy through
the State-mandated literacy courses (EL1 and EL2).
This finding is supported by course descriptions, course objectives, and SPA standards.
• The EL1 course descriptions at 13 of the 15 IHLs describe the correct content as intended by
licensure to include learning how to teach and assess the essential components of concepts
of print, oral language, phonological/phonemic awareness, and phonics. In one instance the
course description does not mention concepts of print, phonological/phonemic awareness,
and phonics at all. Instead, the course focuses on the “four cueing-system,” which does not
address the five essential components.
• The EL2 course descriptions at 13 of 15 institutions describe the correct content as intended
by licensure to focus on learning how to teach and assess the essential components of
fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, plus writing. Two institutions do not list these essential
components as the focus.
• The EL1 course descriptions for all but one institution include language specific to teaching
explicitly and systematically and/or using research-based practices. This language is also
included in EL2 course descriptions at 11 of the 15 programs. This finding reflects that
research-based instruction is mentioned in the course description language, but should not
be interpreted as reflecting research in actual course content. The application of research is
addressed in Finding #3.
Prior to EL1 and EL2, there was a course on philosophy and a course on reading.
They were separated from practice. Now it is much more practical.
Students see it, and live, and reflect on it.
Mississippi IHL Pre-service Faculty
I look for teacher candidates who know phonics and are strong at teaching
vocabulary. I want teachers using strategies to help students figure out words, not
provide the word for them. I expect modeling in the teaching of reading.
Principal in a Partner School
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
14
Finding #2. The structure and content of EL1 and EL2 are inconsistent across the state.
As described in Finding #1, good progress has been made in incorporating the five essential
components of reading as central to effective practice in early literacy. Nonetheless, there are still
serious gaps in Mississippi’s teacher preparation programs with regard to producing effective
practitioners of scientifically-based reading instruction.
This finding is supported by information that shows a wide variety in course structures and course
content in EL1 and EL2 from IHL to IHL. The number of instructional hours and the duration and
quality of fieldwork associated with these two courses also vary widely.
The discussion related to Finding #2 is organized as follows: Structure and Sequence, Instructional
Hours in Class, Fieldwork Hours, Course Content and Emphasis, Time Spent Learning to Teach,
Textbooks, General Assignments, Lesson Plan Assignments, and Exams.
Structure and Sequence
The structure for EL1 and EL2 occurs in many formats. The structure influences how much time can
be devoted to each of the essential components.
I’m not sure we have the right scope and sequence. We may not be systematic.
Mississippi IHL Pre-service Faculty Member
•
The 15 IHLs are offering EL1 and EL2 in five different ways:
1 Two 3-hour courses that are taken in sequence over the course of two semesters, with
EL1 serving as a pre-requisite to EL2. Sometimes the sequence occurs between the fall
and spring of the junior year. Sometimes the sequence occurs between the spring of the
junior year and fall of the senior year.
2 Two 3-hour courses taken in no particular sequence over the course of two semesters
3 Two 3-hour courses taken during the same semester on different days of the week
4 Two 3-hour courses taken during the same semester on the same day, back to back.
5 One 6-hour block taken during the same semester with an intended sequence for
presenting each of the essential components in a distinct timeframe. This does not
necessarily yield a 50/50 split between EL1 and EL2 content.
EL1 is overwhelming. It needs to be taught early, but they forget it by the time they
are seniors. There’s no time to reteach it.
Mississippi IHL Pre-service Faculty
Instructional Hours In Class
In-class instructional hours were calculated based on semester starting and ending dates, course
meeting times, and course schedules provided. For example, a typical 3-hour course might meet
twice a week for 75 minutes each for a series of fifteen weeks, exclusive of holidays. This was
calculated as follows: 2 x 75 minutes = 150 minutes a week x 15 weeks = 2,250 minutes or 37.5
hours of instructional time.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
15
•
•
Instructional hours in class for the three-hour EL1 course ranged from as few as fourteen
hours (when conducted partially on-line as a hybrid course) to as many as 40 hours.
Instructional hours in-class for the three-hour EL2 course was more consistent, averaging
about 45 hours across the state.
Fieldwork Hours
Compared to the 2003 study, fieldwork has significantly increased as part of early literacy
preparation. This is explained further in Finding #6. The section below addresses the inconsistent
structure and expectations related to fieldwork across institutions.
Fieldwork hours were sometimes precisely stated in the syllabus, particularly if fieldwork was part of
the total course grade. Very often it was unclear in course materials provided if fieldwork was within
the scheduled class meeting time, in addition to it, or in lieu of it. Best assumptions were made in
these cases.
• Fieldwork hours for both EL1 and EL2 ranged from zero to twenty. Most institutions require
fieldwork for both courses.
• Two programs extend EL1 and EL2 into 4-hour credits through designated practicum hours,
either through a separate lab course or extending the base course.
• One program requires no field experience in EL1; another requires no field experience in
EL2.
Course Content and Emphasis
The intent of the licensure requirement is to make sure the five essential components are addressed
thoroughly and directly so that pre-service candidates are able to teach early literacy effectively.
Prior to the licensure requirement not all components were being taught. Therefore, the six-hour
block was mandated to ensure that the five essential components are mastered as discrete functions
first, and before learning how a skilled reader integrates the components in the reading process. One
pre-service candidate sized it up this way…
We learn certain things in EL1 & EL2, then it all comes together in the diagnostics
course.
--Pre-service Candidate in IHL Focus Group
•
•
•
Across programs, the median percentage for course content falling outside the scope and
sequence of EL1 is 20% (see Table 6); and for EL2 is 14% (see Table 10).
Some professors continue to teach several components simultaneously, which was the
traditional way of teaching prior to EL1 and EL2 being required, and not the intent of the EL1
and EL2 courses.
At many IHLs, a large percentage of the content in both EL1 and EL2 is outside the intended
scope. This occurs because either (a) material is not aligned to licensure intent for the
specific course and/or, (b) because principles and practices are not supported by the
research. (The content taught in EL1 sometimes includes content appropriate for EL2 and vice
versa.) In addition, the time spent on each of the components is widely disparate.
Occasionally material presented is not reflected in the syllabus at all.
Some content in EL1 & EL2 is redundant.
Pre-service Candidate in IHL Focus Group
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
16
Tell me the five elements. I’m sure I know them, but I can’t remember.
Mississippi IHL 2013 graduate now teaching Kindergarten
•
Phonics, in particular, is receiving considerably more attention, from approximately 20
minutes per semester before the licensure requirement compared to 282 minutes after.
We’ve gone back to phonics. Students need to know the difference between letters
and sounds.
Mississippi IHL Pre-service Faculty
•
Only a few IHLs emphasize a synthetic approach to teaching phonics over other approaches.
Generally, multiple approaches to phonics are being taught and include non-evidence based
practices. This is reflected in comments from recent graduates from the same program:
When I teach spelling, I have them say it, slide it, hear it, write.
st
Mississippi IHL 2012 graduate now teaching 1 grade
versus
I teach phonics in short mini-lessons during guided reading using leveled readers.
nd
Mississippi IHL 2012 graduate now teaching 2
•
grade
Pre-service candidates in focus groups expressed very limited and conflicting knowledge
about a scope and sequence for early literacy skills or the importance of this sequence to
teaching early literacy skills. Materials from one program relied on a precise and
comprehensive scope and sequence for teaching phonics concepts recommended by their
LETRS textbook (Glaser & Moats, 2008). Most programs used the sequence listed in
whatever was the required textbook. Many textbooks did not emphasize or provide a
complete and systematic scope and sequence, resulting in inconsistent or random
approaches to this important issue.
I guess you start with the long vowels, because they say their names.
Pre-service Candidate in IHL Focus Group
Teach the short vowels first; they are more consistent.
Pre-service Candidate in IHL Focus Group
I teach phonics during guided reading. We’ve taught short and long vowels. Next
week we’re doing the silent-e.
2014 IHL Graduate now teaching Kindergarten
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
17
Time Spent Learning to Teach
Table 4 (next page) highlights the statewide averages for the number of minutes devoted specifically
to learning how to teach and assess these essential components. To put this in context, a typical
semester course has approximately 2,450 minutes for EL1 and 2,750 minutes for EL2. Each of the
averages in the table shows the number of instructional minutes within a typical semester course that
are focused on learning how to teach a particular component. These minutes only tell part of the
story, obviously, but they serve as a solid baseline upon which to a build better pre-service program.
Note: The review found that, on average, EL2 courses had more instructional time allocated than for EL1. This
did not appear to be intentional, nor was any rationale provided. It may have been a function of fall and
spring schedules and variations in semester holidays.
TABLE 4
Average Number of Minutes within Semester Courses of EL1 and EL2
Spent Learning to Teach These Components of Reading
EL 1 MINUTES
EL2 MINUTES
Alphabetic
Knowledge
Phonological and
Phonemic Awareness
Explicit Phonics
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
54 mins
150 mins
282 mins
114 mins
154 mins
329 mins
Out of approximately 2,450 total
minute
instructional minutes in a semester of EL1
20% of course time
Out of approximately 2,750 total
instructional minutes in a semester of EL2
22% of course time
These numbers represent an important baseline and they show that the essential components are not
being addressed equitably. For example within a semester course:
• Five programs spent fewer than 90 minutes on phonological and phonemic awareness. One
program did not address phonological skills at all.
• Eleven programs did not address letter formation at all.
• Two programs spent less than an hour on the topic of fluency; three programs did not address
fluency at all.
• Four programs spent less than an hour on vocabulary instruction.
• Comprehension received the most attention with an average of five hours per semester, but
not a single program acknowledged that seven specific comprehension strategies are
documented in research to be most effective for teaching and are more powerful in
combination.
The original HELC prototypes for EL1 and EL2 appropriately included oral language as a component
in both course descriptions.
Generally, the topic of oral language is being addressed in pre-service in three distinct ways: (1) in
terms of the phases of reading development, (2) language as a readiness factor for reading
instruction, and (3) the language experiences of children.
Technically, oral language within the context of EL1 should be related to phonological awareness.
In EL2, oral language is meaning-based and relates to vocabulary and comprehension. Course
descriptions may need amending to reflect these distinctions.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
18
Textbooks
Textbooks appear to serve a variety of functions depending on the professor.
• Across programs, the median percentage for assigned readings from textbooks falling outside
the scope and sequence of EL1 is 35% (see Table 7) and for EL2 is 30% (see Table 11). This
means that approximately a third of required readings in early literacy courses is either not
focused on the five essential components or contains information that is not research-based.
• Many EL1 and EL2 professors rely heavily on textbooks for structuring content, yet full
debriefings or discussions of content was inconsistent.
• Many professors lamented that undergraduate education majors could not be relied on to
come prepared having read the assigned text. This resulted in a range of compensatory
measures including reading the textbook aloud to students in class, having students “jigsaw”
during class, or not discussing content at all.
• More problematic with textbooks is that many of the textbooks in use do not reflect the core
body of effective research or they present conflicting information about best practices.
• Many textbooks encourage practitioners to adopt personal philosophies of reading instruction
and to pick and choose what “works best for them,” as if the research basis is irrelevant.
• The newer editions of the same textbook titles are added year to year, sometimes with little
improvement in content or updating of the research basis.
I prefer no textbook. How wedded should we be to these textbooks?
Mississippi IHL Pre-service Faculty
General Course Assignments
Many assignments do not necessarily contribute to enhancing knowledge or skills of effective
practice. Some do not reflect research-based content. For example:
• Across programs, the median percentage for assignments falling outside the scope and
sequence of EL1 is 24% (See Table 8) and for EL2 is 7% (See Table 12).
• Required reading from professional journals and other sources is a fairly standard practice in
pre-service programs. However, pre-service candidates are allowed to select these articles
with little guidance beyond selecting from a “peer-reviewed” source. (This practice risks
focusing on selections that include out-of-scope content or sacrificing research-based
approaches for preferred practices based on philosophies.)
• Assembling portfolios is still common, as are creating letter books and creating storyboards.
They graded us on our organization, instead of how to teach. They checked the tabs
[on our notebooks] instead of the content.
Pre-service Candidate in IHL Focus Group
We had to read 100 children’s books. What’s the point of that?
Pre-service Candidate in IHL Focus Group
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
19
Lesson Plan Assignments
•
•
•
Several common themes around lesson planning were observed in both EL1 and EL2 courses
or emerged from interviews with pre-service candidates. These themes include:
1 difficulties in knowing how to apply standards to instruction
2 literacy activities with no explicit instruction of the skill
3 rubrics that do not support explicit instruction
4 focusing on more than one essential component at a time
5 no time for practicing lessons before demonstrating in the field
6 no requirement to demonstrate teaching all five essential components
Mississippi College and Career-Ready Standards (MCCRS) are generally required in lesson
plans. Usually the lesson plans submitted list the standards, but the instruction outlined in
the plan did not always teach to the standard.
Often lesson plans in EL1 and EL2 are required to be based on teacher-supported literacy
activities, e.g., such as read-alouds or guided reading, and include only implicit instruction.
We have lesson plans in guided reading to unlock the words in context.
st
2013 IHL Graduate now teaching 1 grade
•
•
•
Not all rubrics for lesson planning call for explicit instruction, followed by modeling. This
includes the Teacher Intern Assessment Instrument (TIAI) which serves as a standard rubric
for evaluating pre-service teaching skills. The TIAI specifies direct instruction, but not
explicit modeling.
EL1 lesson plans did not focus specifically on EL1 components, but included EL2 concepts as
well.
Students reported they did not have enough time to practice their lesson in class prior to
delivering them in the field.
I only observed and then taught a lesson. I freaked out. I didn’t know what to do.
Pre-service Candidate in IHL Focus Group
I Googled how to write a plan.
Pre-service Candidate in IHL Focus Group
•
•
•
Sometimes lesson plans are demonstrated in the field, sometimes not.
Only about half the programs call for individual lesson plans on the essential components
targeted in each of the early literacy courses, and these programs never require lesson plans
for ALL FIVE components intended for each course. For example, students in EL2 may be
required to plan lessons on vocabulary and comprehension, but not fluency.
Writing in both EL1 and EL2 is addressed inconsistently. This is reported as a separate
finding (#9).
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
20
Exams
Exams are a critical feature of effective teacher preparation. What is taught should be assessed and
what is assessed should be taught. Assessments can also improve mastery of content and support
retention of content, depending on their structure.
• Exam questions are frequently not aligned to intended course content. For example in EL1
the median percentage for exam content falling outside the scope of the course is 34%. (See
Table 9.) But in one instance, as much as 72% of exam content was outside the scope of the
course. Often exam content that fell outside the scope had to do with mixing of content
between EL1 and EL2. For example, questions about fluency and comprehension appeared
on EL1 exams. For EL2 the median percentage for exam content falling outside the scope of
the course is 56% as shown in Table 13.
• Most examinations do not require students to apply deep knowledge and defend their
answers. The most common format for exams and quizzes are multiple choice questions and
short answer questions, requiring rote memorization and recall of facts. The few exceptions
are highlighted in individual institutional reports.
• Question stems often lacked rigor and in a few instances answer options were confusing or
offered no correct response.
• Nine of the 15 IHLs have adopted a written phonics exam in EL1, sometimes accompanied
by an oral exam to assess segmenting, blending, and articulation of phonemes.
• In two cases, weekly or frequent topical quizzes related to chapter readings or lectures were
administered.
• Even though written lesson plans typically count toward a portion of the total course grade,
the study did not uncover any EL1 or EL2 instructors that require demonstration of the ability
to teach and assess EACH of the relevant five essential components by a pre-service
candidate in order to pass the course.
Finding #3. Established research-based knowledge of early literacy instruction remains
largely unapplied in preparation and practice.
Interviews with professors acknowledged that some attention is given to exposing pre-service
candidates to research, but that at the undergraduate level the emphasis is on the practical, rather
than the theoretical. Even so, there were few references by professors to specific research to support
practices being taught in pre-service classes.
Are we up to date on research? Are we current? Do we have weaknesses in syllabi?
Are we reflecting best practices? If not, then we need to be trained.
Mississippi IHL Pre-service Faculty Member
Generally, there is awareness among pre-service candidates of the importance of applying scientific
research to the teaching of reading, but they have little knowledge about the research or how to
apply the research to instruction.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
21
•
•
•
•
•
•
Most early literacy courses list the NRP Report (2000) as a reference. However, there is not a
deep understanding of the research in the report and why certain approaches are more
effective than others.
Many professors acknowledged that the National Reading Panel Report was not emphasized
in the undergraduate program. Several discounted its importance or questioned its validity as
a guiding document for effective practices.
Only a handful of programs require students to download Put Reading First (NICHD, 2001),
which offers a reasonable synopsis of how to apply the National Reading Panel
recommendations.
Pre-service focus group participants and faculty alike were hard pressed to describe explicit,
systematic, sequential instruction, except to define the individual words. However, there is a
growing awareness of the gradual release model that applies “I do. We do. You do.”
Research was often cited in PowerPoint presentations, which is a common mode of teaching
in pre-service courses. These presentations were generally well constructed and informative.
However, the research did not always transfer or correspond to early literacy practices being
taught.
Pre-service program planners may be assuming that teacher preparation textbooks are always
informed by the most current or reliable research. Many textbooks in use promote “balanced
literacy” and urge pre-service candidates to form their own philosophies about teaching
reading, suggesting that it is acceptable, and even encouraged, to pick and choose what they
perceive to work best for them.
Finding #4. The application of balanced literacy as the primary approach to instruction is the
major source of literacy practices that are not research-based.
Central to Finding #3 about the absence of research, balanced literacy is heavily influencing the
content of teacher preparation and approaches to reading in the K-3 setting. There is a substantial
body of scientific research that does not support the major elements of balanced literacy as best
practices for early literacy instruction.
• Many features of balanced literacy instruction are being taught in EL1 and EL2. These
include guided reading with embedded skill instruction, application of the cueing system in
early reading instruction, and assessment through running records.
I believe in a ‘balanced approach,’ even though that’s not what the research says. To
me, ‘balanced’ means phonics is taught within guided reading groups. It’s
embedded.
IHL Pre-service Faculty Member
•
•
Phonics activities presented in class and approaches to phonics instruction included in
textbook readings are generally embedded phonics.
When asked to describe a set of practices—both evidence-based and not—pre-service
candidates in focus groups were just as likely to know and explain practices not supported by
research as those that are supported by research. For example:
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
22
Isn’t explicit phonics inappropriate?
Pre-service Candidate in IHL Focus Group
Phonemic awareness is where the students tell me the vowel pattern in small group
guided reading.
2013 IHL Graduate now teaching Kindergarten
Listening, speaking, reading, writing.
Pre-service Candidate in IHL Focus Group describing the 4-part processor components
•
•
Field experiences are often influenced by balanced literacy practice in the K-3 setting.
Interviews and observations in the field reflected conflicting messages and levels of
understanding relative to reading instruction. For example, principals and mentor teachers
expressed expectations regarding “explicit instruction” of early literacy skills by student
interns, yet were implementing the districts’ requirement for guided reading, an approach not
conducive to explicit instruction.
The need to understand guided reading. That’s what our districts require.
Mentor Teacher In a Partner District
Receiving LETRS training was a paradigm shift for me. A whole world of reading
exists that I was not aware of.
Mississippi Superintendent In a Partner District
Finding #5. High standards for learning have become the norm for early literacy and in
teacher preparation.
Standards have become inextricably bound to the processes of teaching and learning. Pre-service
and K-3 lessons are shaped by professionally established standards and including them in course
outlines and content is expected and required. This is not to conclude that the standards are always
well aligned or that there is a clear understanding of how to teach them.
Standards Applied to EL1 and EL2 Coursework
The EL1 and EL2 syllabi for all but one IHL includes Specialized Professional Association (SPA)
standards aligned to course objectives. The most frequently cited sources are IRA/ILA, INTASC,
NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education), and ACEI. A core set of
standards was fairly common across all institutions, although some institutions listed a variety of
additional standards in addition to or in lieu of this core set. Wording of the additional standards
varied widely.
• Of the seventeen EL1 syllabi provided for review, eleven included a fairly consistent set of
eight to ten standards, primarily drawn from IRA and ACEI standards.
• Of the eighteen EL2 syllabi provided for review, twelve included a fairly consistent set of
eight to ten standards, primarily drawn from IRA and ACEI standards.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
23
The common set of standards for both EL1 and EL2 included these familiar ones:
1. Understand reading as an integrated process that results in comprehension/communication as
a product.
2. Understand and apply the research base for effective reading instruction: principles,
techniques, theories, philosophies, and historical bases.
3. Engage children in activities that promote intrinsic motivation to read for pleasure and
information.
4. Understand and promote oral language development.
5. Be able to assess, formally and informally, the learning needs and gaps of individual children
in order to guide precise instruction.
6. Possess in-depth knowledge of phonemic awareness, the alphabetic principle, and the
generalizations that govern the relationship between sounds and symbols (phonics).
7. Understand how concepts about print, phonics, and phonemic awareness are learned by
children and why they are important to the reading and writing process.
8. Know and be able to apply a wide variety of explicit instructional strategies for helping
beginning readers/writers learn concepts about print, phonemic awareness, and phonics.
9. Understand how vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension are learned by children and why
they are important to the reading/writing process.
10. Possess and be able to apply a wide variety of instructional strategies for helping beginning
readers/writers learn vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.
• Three IHLs listed the same set of standards for EL1 and EL2. In all three cases, the standards
listed were appropriate to EL1 and included standards related to the essential components of
concepts of print, phonemic awareness, and phonics. The EL2 standards were missing
specific objectives for fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
Phonemic awareness, syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology?
Pre-service Focus Group Participants attempting to identify the Big Five
Objectives aligned to the standards were not always reflected in course content. For example,
• All fifteen IHLs list the standard on the EL1 syllabus having to do with “assess, formally and
informally, the learning needs and gaps of individual children in order to guide precise
instruction.” However, five of the IHLs do not include assessment of any kind within their
EL1 course outline or assignments.
• All fifteen IHLs list as an objective the teaching of generalizations that govern the relationship
between sounds and symbols (phonics). Few programs recognize that phonics should be
taught according to an appropriate and specific sequence of skills.
• In a few instances, the standards served as an excellent and detailed roster of skills to be
taught. In other cases, standards included subject areas of interest and relevance to
elementary education majors, but outside the scope of EL1 or EL2. For example, frequently
cited standards included family involvement, classroom management, and professionalism.
• Three programs have incorporated standards from the International Dyslexia Association
(IDA).
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
24
Students need to leave here being able to teach phonics and to set up a phonics
program. Our elementary majors are going to have to step up to the plate.
Mississippi IHL Pre-service Faculty
Standards Applied to K-3 Early Literacy Instruction
Mississippi College and Career Ready Standards (MCCRS) are integral to pre-service candidates’
lesson planning. The Mississippi Language Arts Framework is still referenced in many syllabi in
addition to the MCCRS.
• The majority of pre-service faculty reported that they had participated in training about state
standards through MDE. Several reported that they had served as trainers.
• Course outlines frequently included some time spent applying standards to early literacy
instruction. It was not apparent, except in a few excellent cases, where time was spent
explaining the structure of the MCCRS or the sequential characteristics of the early literacy
standards in particular.
• In lesson plan samples provided, instruction did not always directly support the standards.
• Professors reported that pre-service candidates have difficulty writing objectives for lessons.
This was acknowledged by pre-service candidates in the focus groups.
We need a whole seminar just on writing objectives [based on the state standards].
Pre-service Candidate in IHL Focus Group
•
A few campuses have developed excellent presentations for examining the MCCRS in greater
detail. These professors are willing to share these with other teacher preparation programs.
Below is an excerpt from an EL2 presentation at one IHL on how the standards are organized.
How Are Anchor Standards Organized?
Text Types & Purposes
Write an argument or state a claim.
Write informative/explanatory to explain and convey ideas.
Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences.
Production and Distribution
(Grade 3) Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization and style are appropriate.
Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, re-writing.
Use technology to produce and publish writings.
Research to Build and Present Knowledge
Conduct short, as well as, more sustained research projects based on focused questions and demonstrations.
Gather information from multiple sources and demonstrate knowledge
(Grade 4) Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection and research.
(Grade 3) Wide range of topics, wide range of literature
Common Core has strengthened teacher preparation.
Principal in a Partner School
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
25
Finding #6. Opportunities to observe instruction being modeled followed by opportunities
to practice are insufficient for developing entry-level skills for teaching.
This finding is about how often pre-service candidates benefit from a professor or mentor teacher
modeling instruction, and to the quality of the instruction being modeled. It is also about how often
pre-service candidates see instruction demonstrated that is followed by an opportunity to practice,
and then followed by meaningful feedback.
It really helps when they show us how.
Pre-service Candidate in IHL Focus Group
They’ve had no practice teaching in the class. I recommend more observations.
They haven’t seen it modeled. They’ve never seen a teacher conduct a lesson. They
need to practice teaching it after they’ve seen it in the field. They need more
phonics, more on scope and sequence, and more questioning techniques.
2015 Mentor Teacher
In-Class Modeling by Faculty
Explicit, sequential, systematic means that I have to model, not just tell them; that
order makes a difference; the lesson should be predictable—the students should
know what’s coming and at the end know what they’ve learned.”
Mississippi IHL Pre-service Faculty Member
•
•
Pre-service candidates overwhelmingly reported the value of seeing instruction modeled for
them. When asked if this is occurring in pre-service classes many focus group participants
answered affirmatively. However, what they described were demonstrations of literacybased practice activities and not explicit teaching of the five essential components.
During interviews and observations what pre-service candidates often described as
“modeling” by professors were quick examples or demonstrations of a literacy activity: (1)
providing examples of words that contain a particular spelling pattern in a PowerPoint
presentation or by writing them on the board; (2) having students conduct a quick word sort
without first teaching the concept to be sorted; or (3) having students practice administering a
fluency assessment without first explaining procedures.
I wish they had taught us more about the five components. I wish we had worked on
those every day. I would have liked for our professors to let us stand up and teach in
our classes, as if we were teaching to students. My friends from other colleges say
the same.
2014 IHL graduate now teaching Kindergarten
Modeling early literacy instruction is not the norm in pre-service classes.
• Although videos showing effective teaching practices were used in some courses, modeling
of research-based instruction by professors appeared episodic or non-existent.
• Course outlines do not reflect that modeling is strategically placed or consistent within
individual course sections or across the state.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
26
•
•
The format of instruction in most EL1 and EL2 classes observed revolved around a
PowerPoint presentation of material. The purpose of this format appears to be to provide
background information about various topics. Generally, these were well-constructed and
informative, although not always specific to a specific learning outcome or objective.
During interviews, many professors talked about the importance of modeling. However,
modeling of explicit, research-based instruction was observed in only sixteen classes out of
71 observed. Among these sixteen, only one provided a complete lesson cycle followed by
an opportunity for candidates to practice. (Note: A complete lesson cycle is defined here as
as lesson that begins with a stated objective through direct instruction and modeling and
concludes with a check for mastery.)
There is a lot of describing, but not a lot of modeling. There are also many literacy activities taught or
practiced, and not enough direct instruction to teach skills.
I felt like I should have been taught how to teach phonics. They were small classes
that could have been effective in doing this.
Mississippi IHL 2015 Student Intern
We say it a lot [explicit and systematic]. We can’t just tell students. We have to
model it.
Mississippi IHL Pre-service Faculty
Learner Snapshot
Exhibit 1 (on the next page) provides the percentage of the 68 classes (out of a total of 71 classes
observed) in which observation notes were used to inform a Learner Snapshot. The purpose of the
Learner Snapshot was not to assign a score, but rather to create a general profile from the pre-service
candidate’s perspective of the learning experience in early literacy courses.
Pre-service literacy faculty members are encouraged to review the Learner Snapshots in the
individual institutional reports. This review will help them understand how best practices in the
undergraduate setting can enhance the pre-service candidate learning experience.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
27
EXHIBIT 1
Learner Snapshot - Statewide Results
Percentage of 68 Classes in which Item was Recorded on a Learner Snapshot
LEARNER SNAPSHOT – Statewide Results
Objective
47% Session’s objective was visible or clearly conveyed.
89% Objective, as stated or implied, was appropriate to course goals.
Content
74% ALL content presented related to course objective and was logically sequenced.
50% ALL content was accurate and supported by the convergence of science in early reading.
Instructional Format
85% If content presented in lecture format from PowerPoint or textbook, it did not consume more
than 50% of class time.
48% Content presented in multiple and complementary forms (e.g., graphs, narration, etc.).
61% Whole group interactive activity was used to illustrate a concept.
48% Small group or partner work (project based/collaborative learning) related to teaching or
assessing an early literacy skill appropriate to this course.
11% Activity included independent work (e.g., Do Now, “hook”, quiz).
Direct Instruction
29% Previously assigned readings, activities, quizzes, and/or field experiences were explicitly
debriefed.
55% Instructor provided direct instruction about the concept (prior to and distinct from modeling)
with clear explanations and examples.
58% Instructor challenged students to think critically resulting in deeper discussion & purposeful
student questions.
23% Instructor used effective method(s) to check for understanding (e.g., summary debrief, exit
ticket, classroom response system, etc.).
Modeling
24% Instructor modeled how to teach or assess an early literacy skill appropriate to objective.
38% Instructor showed examples of literacy activities.
24% Video or other media was used to illustrate or model instruction or assessment of an early
literacy skill appropriate to the course.
Student Practice
18% Student(s) practiced how to teach or assess an early literacy skill.
26% Student(s) presented material or led discussion about an early literacy concept or skill.
Note: Beyond the first two sections on Objective and Content, it is not expected that all of these would
be observed in a single session.
•
In half (50%) of the classes observed where a Learner Snapshot was recorded, some of the
information conveyed was not supported by the science. (See Findings #3 & #4 for
recommendations related to this issue.)
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
28
•
In 24% of the classes observed where a Learner Snapshot was recorded, the professor
modeled an explicit and structured lesson on an early literacy skill. This compares to 38% of
the classes, where professors showed examples of literacy-based practice activities.
Several of the deans stated they encourage an open classroom policy within teacher preparation
programs where faculty members are encouraged to observe each others’ teaching. This practice of
peer observations is not typical in higher education, however, in the context of teacher preparation it
is appropriate for strengthening pre-service instruction in the same way it is encouraged in the K-12
setting as a model for reflective professional learning.
Fieldwork as Time for Practice
In the context of Finding #6, fieldwork should provide critical time in the K-3 setting for honing skills
through observing others and opportunities for practice.
•
•
Observation of instruction or working one-on-one with students are often not sufficiently
debriefed to be useful to the pre-service candidate.
Students must accrue time in the field, but assigned tasks in the field are not always
associated with a specific, measurable learning objective for the pre-service candidate.
They should have to teach a full lesson in the field and receive feedback from the
mentor teacher and the professor, then return to the school and reflect. This should
happen all before student teaching.
Principal in an IHL Partner School
Finding #7. Time in the field associated with early literacy instruction has increased
significantly.
It is not enough…to have the textbook knowledge…. One must also grasp the clinical
reality, with its nuances of timing and sequence. One needs practice to achieve mastery,
a body of experience before one achieves real success. And if what we are missing
when we fail is individual skill, then what is needed is simply more training and practice.
The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right (Gawunde, 2009)
Since the 2003 Study, all programs have significantly increased the time allotted to early literacy
practicum experiences.
• In 2003 few courses required fieldwork specific to early literacy. Today’s average is 10.5
hours for each of EL1 and EL2.
• As recommended in the 2003 BRI report, several programs now mandate that pre-service
candidates participate in the first and last weeks of school in a K-3 setting. This practice
enables pre-service candidates to observe the classroom management challenges that can
occur at the start of school, as well as the tasks of bringing closure to a year of academic
work on the last day. During K-3 setting interviews, many recent graduates recommended
that this requirement be added to the internship experience.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
29
•
•
Common activities in fieldwork reported by pre-service candidates and noted in course
schedules include observing classes, assisting with literacy centers, conducting informal
assessments, one-on-one tutoring or partner reading, and occasionally delivering small group
or whole group instruction.
Related to the efficacy of fieldwork, because lesson plan assignments (e.g., read louds and
guided reading) require pre-service candidates to teach more than one component within a
single lesson they miss the opportunity to learn to teach each component explicitly,
sequentially, and systematically.
Note: In the context of EL1, read alouds and guided reading are appropriate for teaching concepts of
print. In the context of EL2, read alouds and guided reading are appropriate for developing students’
vocabulary, content knowledge, comprehension, and use of text structure. Read alouds are not a
substitute for explicit and direct instruction of any of the components of reading.
•
•
Explicit instruction does not appear as a criterion in all rubrics for evaluating lesson plans
delivered during fieldwork. Weighting specific strands of the TIAI could address this critical
missing element.
Finding K-3 classrooms that offer rich and reliable practicum settings to support teacher
preparation remains a challenge. Prior to the internship semester, there is often not a
coordinated schedule of activities between pre-service faculty and the mentor teachers. Preservice candidates report serving as just another set of hands in the classroom.
It really depends on the mentor teacher. Sometimes we’re just there sitting in the
back of the room or acting as an assistant for paper handling.
2015 Student Intern
Finding #8. Almost all programs offer a distinct assessment course specific to reading
difficulties.
Among the practical skills every elementary education teacher must have, accurate assessment of
reading difficulties is imperative. Even though there are more and more professionals serving in
intervention roles in the K-3 setting, classroom teachers must be informed about assessment,
interventions, and progress monitoring.
•
•
•
•
•
Since 2003, 13 of the 15 IHLs now offer a stand-alone assessment course at the
undergraduate level.
All of the assessment courses are specific to assessing reading difficulties and often they have
a fieldwork component.
There is a gap in the content of the assessment courses. The focus is on informal assessments
and case studies using analytical reading inventories, running records, and interest
inventories. Very little attention is given to specific instruments that can pinpoint skill gaps in
early literacy skills, such as phoneme segmentation or decoding single and multisyllabic
words.
Pre-service candidates are receiving little training in the use of diagnostic tools or formal
assessments, such as curriculum-based or other benchmark assessments.
Case studies built on informal reading assessments are a common requirement in pre-service
programs. Samples of case studies provided lacked accuracy and specificity in identifying
and addressing reading deficits.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
30
•
•
•
Modeling the administration of assessments is inconsistent in pre-service programs. When it
does occur, modeling is generally confined to informal assessments. Some focus group
participants indicated that modeling of informal inventories is not effectively narrated by
professors to yield a clear understanding.
Pre-service candidates have a general understanding that tailoring reading instruction for
students begins with some type of fluency assessment. Participants in most of the 20 preservice focus groups had some knowledge of fluency benchmarks, including the approximate
rate for end of third grade. Very few were aware of the importance of accuracy and how to
calculate it.
Most recent graduates interviewed were familiar with STAR and DIBELS assessments because
they were trained by their districts after they began teaching. They used these assessments
primarily for universal screening and progress monitoring.
We’ve only given a phonological awareness assessment. We did it on our own and
wrote a report of recommendations. I don’ really understand the phonological
component.
Pre-service IHL Focus Group participant
We only assess fluency at the beginning of the year.
rd
2013 IHL graduate now teaching 3 grade
Our favorite is the CRI [Comprehensive Reading Inventory]. It’s the only one we’ve
learned how to do.
Pre-service IHL Focus Group participant
•
When describing appropriate steps to help a struggling reader, focus group participant
responses lacked specifics beyond informal inventories about where to start or how to
proceed:
I try to find the issue. What aspects are they struggling with? Is it decoding or
comprehension?
nd
2012 IHL Graduate now teaching in a 2
grade
First ask them their reading level; then find them a book.
Pre-service IHL Focus Group participant on how to help a struggling reader
I’d decode the words for them.
Pre-service IHL Focus Group participant
I’m a struggling reader. I’d tell them a strategy I use: point to the words.
Pre-service IHL Focus Group participant
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
31
•
Pre-service candidates could offer very few specifics about what to do when faced with a
struggling reader. Response to Intervention (RtI) is a familiar concept to pre-service
candidates, but they have incorrect information about the process. Participants in almost
every focus group across the state used these words to describe what RtI means:
Tier 1 is whole group. Tier 2 is small group. Tier 3 is one-on-one.
Pre-service IHL Focus Group participants
Every intervention has all 5 components of reading.
Pre-service IHL Focus Group participant
•
•
Some focus group participants described RtI as a special education program, as opposed to
general education.
Assessment courses, where offered, do not always include RtI as a standard topic in course
content.
Finding #9. Writing as a literacy component is inadequately addressed.
Pre-service candidates and professors universally reported that the teaching of writing is inadequately
addressed in teacher preparation. The Language Arts Methods and Content Area Literacy courses
appear to be where the writing process is primarily taught. EL1 has a role in addressing these aspects
of writing: letter formation, handwriting, and encoding/spelling. EL2 should incorporate how writing
supports vocabulary and comprehension.
• In most EL1 courses the phases of reading and writing are discussed.
• Only two programs required a specific assignment about the reading/writing connection in
EL1. In one case pre-service candidates are required to assess writing; the other required a
lesson plan on interactive writing.
• Handwriting (a skill related to letter formation and encoding) was noted in the syllabus of
only one of the early literacy courses.
• Nine IHLs require an EL2 assignment associated with the reading/writing connection. The
objectives for these assignments are varied. The assignments include collecting and assessing
samples of children’s writing, lesson plans on interactive writing, creating a graphic
organizer, writers’ workshops, and writing a children’s book.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
32
IV. STATEWIDE AGGREGATE DATA FOR EL1 AND EL2
A. Overview of Statewide Aggregate Data
It was clear from our study that IHLs vary greatly in degrees of alignment to the intended purposes of
EL1 and EL2.
The tables show percentages of actual content that align with intended content and research in four
key areas: (1) overall course content, (2) textbooks, (3) assignments, and (4) exams. These
percentages illustrate the most alignment, the median alignment, and the least alignment to content
and research for each of the four areas addressed in the study. This was a simple way indicate the
variance in how IHLs structure EL1 and EL2 courses.
B. How to Interpret the Data Tables in this Section
Table 5 below is used to illustrate how to interpret all the tables in this section. (Table 5 is an
illustration based on Table 7 in subsection E with the other tables about EL1 content.)
Table 5 shows the percent of content in assigned textbook readings for EL1 courses, broken into the
categories:
• Column 1 – Reading related to “How to Teach EL1 Intended Content”
• Column 2 – Reading related to “Background Knowledge about EL1 Content”
• Column 3 – Reading “Outside the Scope of EL1 Intended Content”
Rows 1, 2, and 3 show the percentages of the reading from textbooks about content included for
EL1.
• Row 1 shows the percentage that was the most alignment for each column (category).
• Row 2 shows the median alignment for each column (category).
• Row 3 shows the least alignment for each column (category).
The percentages in each cell could be from different IHLs. For example, in Row 1, the percentage in
Column 1 could be from one IHL that had the highest percentage of readings aligned to “How to
Teach EL1 Intended Content”. In Row 2, the percentage in Column 1 may be from a different IHL
that had the median percentage, and Row 3 might be yet a different IHL that had the lowest
percentage. The same is true when looking at the percentages in Columns 2 and 3, each could also
be from different IHLs.
The percentages in Column 3 range from lowest in Row 1 to highest in Row 2 because for “Outside
the Scope of EL1 Intended Content,” the lowest percentage is most aligned to intended course
content and the highest percentage is the least aligned to intended course content.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
33
TABLE 5: SAMPLE
ILLUSTRATION FOR INTERPRETING DATA TABLES FOR EL1 & EL2
EL1 ASSIGNED TEXTBOOK READINGS
Alignment of EL1 to Intended Purpose & Research
Column 1
Column 2
How to Teach
EL1 Intended
Content
Background
Knowledge about
EL1 Concepts
“THE HOW”
“THE WHAT”
Column 3
Outside Scope of
EL1 Intended
Content
Row 1
Most
Alignment
54%
77%
10%
Row 2
Median
Alignment
22%
27%
35%
Row 3
Least
Alignment
6%
21%
58%
Each column in the table shows the range of percentages from most to least aligned:
• Column 1 – The percent of textbook assignments aligned with how to teach EL1 intended
content ranged from a high of 54% to a low of 6%.
• Column 2 – The range for percent of textbook assignments aligned with background
knowledge related to EL1 intended concepts ranged from a high of 77% to a low of 21%.
• Column 3 – The range for content outside the intended content of EL1 is 10% for the most
alignment and 58% for the least alignment.
C. Introduction to Statewide Aggregate Data
The data examined for the EL1 and EL2 courses at thirteen* of the IHLs are aggregated and discussed
in this section. The aggregate data show the degree to which EL1 and EL2 courses across the state
are aligned to the intended purposes of EL1 and EL2.
*Two IHLs combined EL1 and EL2 into one block taught as a single course. These single-block courses
required a different approach for analysis. All of the content was collapsed into a single course and analyzed
as a unified syllabus. Data from these two courses are not included in the aggregate data. However, the
aggregate data from these two courses fits within the range of data for the statewide aggregate.
Review of course schedules, syllabi, textbooks, assignments, and exams were the primary sources for
these analyses. For some courses the schedules lacked detail, making it difficult to assess class
content and assignments. In these cases, interviews with professors and pre-service candidates,
coupled with a review of assigned readings and class assignments, were used to estimate the types of
activities generally occurring during class time.
EL1 and EL2 courses at each IHL were thoroughly reviewed. Therefore, these aggregates provide a
fairly reliable profile of the emphasis placed on the intended content for the courses. IHLs can
compare their individual institution reports against the statewide data.
Aggregate data for EL1 courses are discussed in subsection E and for EL2 courses in subsection F.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
34
D. Overview of Tables for EL1 and EL2 Review
The aggregate data for the statewide review of EL1 and EL2 courses are shown in tables in the next
two subsections. When reviewing EL1 and EL2 courses, we looked at four major areas and
summarized the percentage of time or content devoted to the intended purpose of the course. The
four areas examined were:
• Course content
• Textbooks
• Assignments
• Exams
Each table has one or more columns, depending on which topics are applicable to the specific area
in the table. Each column in a table shows percentages for three IHLs: the IHL with most, median,
and least alignment to the intended course content.
It should be noted that in the “outside of scope” column, the smallest percentage is most aligned and
the largest percentage is least aligned. For example, in Table 5, the IHL with 10% of course content
“outside the scope” was more aligned to EL1 purpose than the IHL with 58% of course content
“outside the scope.”
Some of the columns vary for EL1 and EL2. The columns specific to EL1 and EL2 are explained in
the following sections.
E. Tables for EL1 Review
The columns in each of the aggregate tables represent a function within the EL1 course. Table 4 has
all five of the columns described below. Tables 6-9 have only three or four of columns, which are
applicable to the part of the course being reviewed.
Column descriptions are:
• How to Teach EL1 Intended Content – Percentage of the content that focused on developing
clinical skills for teaching the components. (THE HOW)
• Background Knowledge about EL1 Intended Content – Percentage of the content that focused
on information related to the concepts (e.g., research, standards, curriculum, RtI, assessment,
ELL) but not directly related to instructional techniques. (THE WHAT)
• Fieldwork – Percentage of course time devoted to pre-service candidates either observing or
conducting instruction related to EL1 intended content in a K-3 setting. In a few cases,
activities associated with literacy conferences or book fairs were counted in this category.
• Outside the Scope of EL1 includes the percentage of area examined that was devoted to
topics either unrelated to EL1 concepts or not supported by research. Examples are: content
related to EL2, general education theory, classroom management, literacy above 3rd grade,
non-explicit instruction.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
35
TABLE 6
EL1 COURSE CONTENT
Alignment to Intended Purpose & Research
(Columns and rows do not total to 100% because each cell shows a percentage for only one IHL,
and the percentage in each cell may be from different IHLs.)
How to Teach
EL1 Intended
Content
Background
Knowledge about
EL1 Concepts
“THE HOW”
“THE WHAT”
Most
Alignment
39% (HOW)
Median
Alignment
Least
Alignment
Fieldwork
Specific to EL1
Instruction
Outside Scope of EL1
34% (WHAT)
46%
5%
21% (HOW)
22% (WHAT)
24%
20%
10% (HOW)
7% (WHAT)
0%
47%
Intended Content
TABLE 7
EL1 ASSIGNED TEXTBOOK READINGS
Alignment to Intended Purpose & Research
(Columns and rows do not total to 100% because each cell shows a percentage
for only one IHL, and the percentage in each cell may be from different IHLs.)
How to Teach
EL1 Intended
Content
Background
Knowledge about
EL1 Concepts
“THE HOW”
“THE WHAT”
Most
Alignment
54% (HOW)
77% (WHAT)
12%
Median
Alignment
22% (HOW)
27% (WHAT)
35%
6% (HOW)
21% (WHAT)
Least
Alignment
Outside Scope
of EL1 Intended
Content
58%
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
36
TABLE 8
EL1 ASSIGNMENTS
Alignment to Intended Purpose & Research
(Columns and rows do not total to 100% because each cell shows a percentage for only one IHL,
and the percentage in each cell may be from different IHLs.)
Most
Alignment
Median
Alignment
Least
Alignment
How to Teach
EL1 Intended
Content
Background
Knowledge about
EL1 Concepts
“THE HOW”
“THE WHAT”
44% (HOW)
Fieldwork
Specific to EL1
Components
Outside Scope
of EL1 Intended
Content
60% (WHAT)
39%
0%
27% (HOW)
14% (WHAT)
24%
24%
0% (HOW)
0% (WHAT)
0%
65%
TABLE 9
EL1 EXAMS
Alignment to Intended Purpose & Research
(Columns and rows do not total to 100% because each cell shows a percentage for
only one IHL, and the percentage in each cell may be from different IHLs.)
How to Teach
EL1 Intended
Content
Background
Knowledge about
EL1 Concepts
“THE HOW”
“THE WHAT”
Most
Alignment
83% (HOW)
55% (WHAT)
3%
Median
Alignment
35%
28%
34%
0% (HOW)
13% (WHAT)
72%
Least
Alignment
Outside Scope
of EL1 Intended
Content
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
37
F. Tables for EL2 Review
The columns relating to EL2 content in Tables 10-13 differ somewhat from the columns in EL1
tables. In the EL2 tables, “learning how to teach” and “background knowledge” are combined in the
same column for each of the components, whereas they are separated as two functions in the EL1
tables for all of the components.
The three columns with learning how to teach and background knowledge related to the intended
EL2 course content are:
•
•
•
Learning How to Teach and Background Knowledge for Fluency
Learning How to Teach and Background Knowledge for Vocabulary
Learning How to Teach and Background Knowledge for Comprehension and Writing
Two columns that are the same for EL1 and EL2 are:
• Fieldwork includes any observations or activities specific to the three EL2 components that
were carried out in a K-3 setting. In a few cases, activities associated with literacy
conferences or book fairs were counted in this category.
• Outside the Scope of EL2 includes the percentage of the course devoted to any topic not
related to teaching or assessing EL2 concepts or activities not supported by research.
Examples of items included in this category were activities related to EL1, general education
theory, classroom management, and literacy above 3rd grade.
TABLE 10
EL2 COURSE CONTENT
Alignment to Intended Purpose & Research
(Columns and rows do not total to 100% because each cell shows a percentage for only one IHL,
and the percentage in each cell may be from different IHLs.)
How to Teach and
Background Knowledge
Most
Alignment
Median
Alignment
Least
Alignment
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
& Writing
17% (F)
20% (V)
48% (C/W)
10% (F)
14% (V)
25% (C/W)
0% (F)
5% (V)
13% (C/W)
Fieldwork
Specific to EL2
Instruction
Outside Scope
of EL2
Intended
Content
36%
0%
25%
14%
0%
40%
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
38
TABLE 11
EL2 ASSIGNED TEXTBOOK READINGS
Alignment to Intended Purpose & Research
(Columns and rows do not total to 100% because each cell shows a percentage for only one IHL,
and the percentage in each cell may be from different IHLs.)
How to Teach and
Background Knowledge
Most
Alignment
Median
Alignment
Least
Alignment
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
and Writing
27% (F)
35% (V)
82% (C/W)
11% (F)
15% (V)
42% (C/W)
0% (F)
5% (V)
19% (C/W)
Outside Scope
of EL2 Intended
Content
0%
30%
68%
TABLE 12
EL2 ASSIGNMENTS
Alignment to Intended Purpose & Research
(Columns and rows do not total to 100% because each cell shows a percentage for only one IHL,
and the percentage in each cell may be from different IHLs.)
How to Teach and
Background Knowledge
Most
Alignment
Median
Alignment
Least
Alignment
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
and Writing
21% (F)
26% (V)
84% (C/W)
10% (F)
19% (V)
25% (C/W)
0% (F)
3% (V)
13% (C/W)
Fieldwork
Specific to EL2
Components
Outside Scope
of EL2 Intended
Content
49%
0%
32%
7%
0%
61%
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
39
TABLE 13
EL2 EXAMS
Alignment to Intended Purpose & Research
(Columns and rows do not total to 100% because each cell shows a percentage for only one IHL,
and the percentage in each cell may be from different IHLs.)
How to Teach and
Background Knowledge
Most
Alignment
Median
Alignment
Least
Alignment
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
and Writing
44% (F)
32% (V)
83% (C/W)
18% (F)
18% (V)
40% (C/W)
0% (F)
0% (V)
15% (C/W)
Outside Scope
of EL2 Intended
Content
0%
20%
56%
Administrative Portion of Courses
Part of the individual institutional reviews also examined what percentage of the course was devoted
to administrative details, such as reviewing the syllabus, giving instructions relative to fieldwork,
and/or administering quizzes and exams. This information is reported anonymously below for EL1
and EL2 from lowest percentage to highest percentage of course content.
TABLE 14
EL1 Course Content Devoted to Administrative Tasks & Exams
NA
NA
0%
2%
7%
8%
9%
10%
10%
11%
11%
12%
17%
17%
20%
32%
TABLE 15
EL2 Course Content Devoted to Administrative Tasks & Exams
3%
4%
8%
8%
10%
13%
13%
13%
14%
16%
17%
18%
19%
23%
25%
26%
Note: Median for each is highlighted in gray. NA means course outline was not provided for this
course at two particular sites. The cells in Table 14 do not correspond directly with the cells in Table
15. The cells in each of these Tables do not total 23* sites because they do not include the blocked
versions, but they do include some of the satellites.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
40
V. THE FOUR STUDY QUESTIONS ANSWERED
The answers to the Four Study Questions reflect statewide themes. Specific findings may not apply
to every teacher preparation program. However, findings in this section should be interpreted as
occurring more often than not.
1.
Do the early literacy courses EL1 and EL2 meet the intent of the licensure requirement
to strengthen early literacy instruction?
EL1 and EL2 partially meet the intent of licensure, based on these findings:
• The five essential components of reading instruction are now common to almost all
Mississippi Teacher Preparation Programs through the state-mandated courses.
• EL1 & EL2 course content, textbooks, assignments, and exams are not fully aligned with the
intended purpose and research base.
Recommendation 1.1: Standardize the structure and content of EL1 & EL2. Establish a core
curriculum with common features: standard syllabus and course outline, approved list of
textbooks and sequence of articles on the science, consistent guidelines for teaching the
reading/ writing connection, increased structure to field experiences tied to learning
objectives, required demonstration of proficiency in teaching five essential components.
Recommendation 1.2: Protect focus of EL1 content on oral language (as it relates to
phonology), and the essential components of concepts of print, phonological/phonemic
awareness, phonics, plus handwriting. Protect the focus of EL2 content on oral language (as
it relates to vocabulary and comprehension), and the essential components of fluency,
vocabulary, comprehension plus writing. Teach practices and strategies for each component
individually within a class session until mastered before introducing other skills in the
integrated process of reading.
Recommendation 1.3: Include only research-based principles and practices in teacher
preparation so that best practices can be transferred to the K-3 setting. This includes an
emphasis on synthetic phonics because the synthetic phonics approach is supported by
research to have the greatest effective sizes on low-SES students (NRP, 2000; Hattie, 2009).
Require pre-service candidates to pass an oral phonemic articulation and written phonics test
with 100% proficiency.
2.
Do the early literacy courses sufficiently equip pre-service candidates with the
foundational knowledge and practical skills required to deliver effective reading
instruction in K-3 on “day one?”
Early literacy courses only partially equip pre-service candidates with knowledge and skills for
teaching on day one, based on these findings:
• Pre-service candidates and recent graduates have limited knowledge about how to deliver
explicit and sequential instruction.
Recommendation 2.1: Create campus-based mock K-3 classroom to support regular
observation of instruction with feedback and to enable simulation of literacy block rotations.
Direct instruction of a skill should be distinguished from showing examples of literacy
activities.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
41
•
Pre-service candidates report that they have difficulty translating standards into meaningful
objectives for instruction.
Recommendation 2.2: Include a module in the early literacy sequence on the structure of
MCCRS and how to write student-friendly objectives based on the standards that are
effectively supported by instruction. Several teacher preparation programs have developed
modules on understanding the standards that could serve as useful prototypes.
•
Pre-service candidates have limited knowledge of how to assess reading skills or
specific strategies for helping struggling readers.
Recommendation 2.3: Increase exposure to a broader array of assessment instruments and
their use to inform instruction. Provide pre-service students with an appropriate sequence to
gauge early literacy skills against recognized benchmarks.
Recommendation 2.4: Within EL1 and EL2 content, make clear the distinctions in Tier 1, Tier
2, and Tier 3 instruction, as well as provide practice in how to write targeted interventions
and execute with effective pacing.
•
Pre-service candidates are not required to demonstrate proficiency in explicit instruction of ALL
FIVE components of reading.
Recommendation 2.5: Require teacher candidates to demonstrate a complete explicit and
structured lesson for each of the essential components, plus writing, prior to graduation.
Recommendation 2.6: Adopt and use a research-based scope and sequence for teaching
phonics skills
•
Pre-service candidates are not required to demonstrate proficiency in assessing ALL FIVE
components of reading.
Recommendation 2.7: Require teacher candidates to demonstrate proficiency in assessing
the individual components of reading, plus writing prior to graduation.
•
Preparation does not sufficiently equip candidates to evaluate and adapt or supplement literacy
materials in order to maximize explicit instruction. Although basal textbooks are routinely
reviewed, these reviews do not judiciously examine how aligned the activities and lessons are
with research-based instruction.
Recommendation 2.8: Incorporate an analysis of state-adopted materials in EL1, EL2, and/or
the Language Arts methods course to familiarize pre-service candidates with how these
materials approach instruction and incorporate MCCRS.
New teachers must be knowledgeable enough about what constitutes effective instruction to
successfully navigate the waters of curriculum and instruction in any K-3 setting. Ideally and over
time, these newly-minted teachers will influence decisions made about instruction and products in
the public schools to better reflect evidence-based choices.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
42
3.
Are there gaps or duplications in the scope, sequence, and content of early literacy
courses that might prevent efficient and sufficient preparation for early literacy
instruction?
Early literacy courses at some IHLs have gaps and duplications in the scope and content of the
courses and irregularities in the sequence of the courses, based on these findings:
Note: Institutional reports provide more detailed information about gaps and duplications at each institution.
•
There are gaps in the scope of early literacy content on most campuses. These gaps are
specific to learning about assessment and the inadequate attention to writing as a component
of literacy.
Recommendation 3.1: Review objectives and course outlines in the reading sequence for
these missing elements intended by licensure. Ensure consistency of approaches and best
practices when similar objectives apply to more than one course (e.g., universal screeners,
teaching spelling).
•
There are duplications in the scope of early literacy instruction on a few campuses resulting
in inefficient use and impact of the 15-hour sequence. Some duplications are reasonable,
even desirable (e.g., teaching comprehension in EL2 and also in the Language Arts Methods
and Content Are Literacy courses.) Other duplications are inefficient and create confusion
(e.g., campuses offer courses with very similar or same course descriptions and objectives,
but different titles.)
Recommendation 3.2: Review course titles, course descriptions, course objectives, and
course schedules for all required and elective courses in reading to (a) address duplications
with other courses, and (b) ensure alignment of content to intent of each course. On
occasion, objectives are listed in syllabi that are either not supported in course content or
have the effect of diluting the focus of the course.
•
There are numerous gaps in the content of EL1 and EL2 in adequately addressing all five
essential components, plus writing. These EL1 and EL2 gaps are addressed in
recommendations related to Question #1. The critical role that EL1 and EL2 play in the
context of the 15-hour requirement cannot be overstated.
•
Other specific gaps in content include a clear understanding of the research base related to
early literacy instruction, information about formal assessments, the 3-tier model of
instruction and RtI, and writing as a constituent of literacy.
Recommendation 3.3: Assemble a sequence of articles specific to the core body of research
on effective early literacy instruction as required readings for pre-service students. Several
teacher preparation programs have begun this process and can serve as models. BRI is also
preparing a list of recommended readings.
Recommendation 3.4: Expand assessment course content to include formal assessments, a
full explanation of the RtI process, and the distinctions between Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3
instruction.
Recommendation 3.5: Revisit objectives of all early literacy courses to secure the teaching of
writing as a constituent of literacy instruction. Several teacher preparation programs are
beginning to do this and can serve as models.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
43
Recommendation 3.6: As a useful planning document, develop a matrix that maps key
concepts and skills as they are acquired through the entire elementary education sequence of
courses. The matrix would be designed to identify in which course(s) and at what level the
key concepts are taught (e.g., does the course introduce, develop, or reinforce a concept and
skill?) In addition to general skills such as lesson planning, rubric development, and
differentiation of instruction, programs would be strengthened by establishing where the
following literacy-specific skills are introduced, developed, and reinforced in the sequence.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The five essential components of reading
The phonological awareness continuum of skills
A scope and sequence for teaching phonics
Assessment to identify specific reading difficulties
Process and rationale for RtI
Modeling explicit instruction
Interpreting and communicating assessment data
Structure of MCCRS Foundational Reading Skills
One teacher preparation program has created a matrix that can serve as a prototype. Possible
consideration might be given to amending the “RDG” prefix to “LIT” prefix to better reflect the
inclusion of writing into early literacy.
•
There are irregularities in the sequence of early literacy courses across the state. For
example, on some campuses the courses occur simultaneously. On other campuses they
occur in discrete semesters. This results in a wide disparity in instructional hours campus to
campus.
Recommendation 3.7: A more consistent structure would ensure greater equity of
opportunity and preparation for all pre-service candidates. Based on pre-service candidate
and faculty interviews, as well as the nature of early literacy content, the study team
concluded that the following sequence would best support the development of effective
practice: EL1 in the fall of junior year, EL2 in the spring of junior year, and a reading
assessment course in the fall of senior year.
4.
Are pre-service candidates exposed (whether in class or in the field) to pedagogy that
reflects best practices supported by current and valid literacy-related research?
Pre-service candidates are not consistently or adequately exposed to pedagogy that reflects best
practices supported by current and valid literacy research, based on the findings below. This
knowledge of the science and pedagogy is missing from pre-service classes, as well as field
experiences.
• The established research-based knowledge of early literacy instruction remains largely
unrecognized in pre-service course work.
Recommendation 4.1: One or more early literacy professors from all 15 university programs
and 104 pre-service candidates from three programs have participated in at least one phase
of LETRS training. Work is needed to translate this information into pre-service content and
instruction. All professors of EL1 and EL2 should be required to attend all LETRS modules.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
44
LETRS really encouraged me to step up my game, to make my teaching much more
rigorous. I really wish I’d taken it before I began to teach EL1 & EL2.
-Mississippi IHL Pre-service Faculty Member
Recommendation 4.2: Disseminate a sequence of articles specific to the core body of
research on effective early literacy instruction as part of a credentialing process for pre-service
faculty. BRI is also preparing a list of recommended readings.
Recommendation 4.3: Supplement or replace textbooks, which provide inaccurate or
incomplete presentations of the evidence-based practices with selected readings that draw on
salient research. Discontinue the practice of having pre-service candidates select their own
articles.
•
Exposure to pedagogy is mostly characterized by demonstrations of literacy activities or minilessons rather than direct and explicit modeling of instruction within a full lesson cycle
followed by practice.
Recommendation 4.4: Shift primary focus from demonstrating literacy activities to regular
modeling of explicit instruction in each of the essential components of reading within a
systematic sequence. This type of modeling enables pre-service candidates to understand
how early literacy skills fit into a sequence of instruction, as well as how skills apply to the
larger context of the reading process. Understanding of the Simple View of Reading (Gough
& Tunmer, 1986), the 4-part Processor Model (Seidenberg & McClelland, 1998) and
Scarborough’s Rope Model (Scarborough, 2001) would support this understanding.
Recommendation 4.5: Review research about best teaching practices upon which the Learner
Snapshots are based; incorporate best practices from adult learning theory and the literature
on organizing for effective instruction in all pre-service instruction and assessment.
This final question speaks to the knowledge and skill required to teach early literacy, the researchbasis for early literacy instruction, and the art of teaching. It is the paramount role of teacher
preparation to blend the science with the art of teaching. It is the responsibility of the professors to
know the science, model effective practice, and assess pre-service candidates on performance.
We need a better training mechanism for new faculty. Some courses are sacred.
Some, like EL1 and EL2 should not fall under academic freedom. This should be
considered statewide.
Mississippi IHL Pre-service Faculty Member
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
45
VI. BRINGING SCIENCE TO THE FOREFRONT OF LITERACY INSTRUCTION
Enormous progress has been made toward understanding skilled reading, acquisition of
reading skills, the brain bases of reading, the causes of developmental reading
impairments and how such impairments can be treated. ‘If the science is so good, why
do so many people read so poorly’?
The Science of Reading and Its Educational Implications
Mark Seidenberg, 2013
A. Overview of this Section
EL1 and EL2 courses were mandated to ensure that pre-service candidates can implement researchbased instruction in early literacy on the first day they teach. This section has three parts that
support the findings and recommendations in this report. The first part gives an overview of the
scientific research that informs best practices for early literacy instruction. The second part explains
why the balanced literacy approach to early reading instruction as presently interpreted does not
reflect best practices based on scientific research. The third part discusses why educational
practitioners have not embraced the scientific research.
Readers are also directed to the Glossary provided in Section VIII of this report for definitions of
terms referenced in this section and throughout this report.
B. Synthesis of Evidence-Based Best Practices in Early Literacy Instruction
Overview
As Seidenberg’s quote above states, huge progress has been made toward understanding the reading
process. Reading researchers have a remarkable consensus about the basic theory of how reading
works and the causes of reading successes and failures (Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, &
Seidenberg, 2001; Gabrieli, 2009).
A number of studies and meta-analyses have examined the factors that lead to successful reading.
The NRP (2000) famously identified five essential components of effective reading instruction, which
are phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. The NRP
acknowledged that writing is an important component of reading instruction, but did not include an
examination of the research about effective writing instruction because of time constraints and other
resource limitations. Much of this section is a distillation of the research in the NRP report.
Research about different types of teaching methods was examined in John Hattie’s meta-analysis
(2009). Hattie’s research about the effectiveness of various teaching methods is summarized in the
last part of this section.
This section is by no means a complete review of relevant research about early reading instruction. It
is meant to give readers some idea of the research upon which the pre-service early literacy
curriculum should be founded as well as the basis of instruction in our elementary and secondary
schools in Mississippi. The research in this section is also a foundation for the discussions that
follow about balanced literacy and the conflict between science and education.
Phonemic Awareness
Research shows that lack of phonemic awareness is a major obstacle for many children when
learning to read (Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987).
The NRP concluded the following about phonemic awareness instruction:
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
46
1
Phonemic awareness instruction provides a benefit for all types of beginning readers: young
children at risk of failure, young children progressing normally, and older, learning disabled
children.
2
The impact of phonemic awareness instruction was evident when measuring both word
recognition and reading comprehension.
3
Effect sizes were larger when children received focused and explicit instruction on one or
two phonological awareness (PA) skills than when they were taught a combination of three or
more PA skills.
Gillon (2003) examines research about the levels of phonological awareness that lead to phonemic
awareness and the instructional techniques that most effectively lead to phonemic awareness that
will support early reading skills.
There is a clear hierarchy of phonological awareness skills, which includes (from easiest to most
difficult): syllables, onset-rime, and phonemic awareness (Gillon, 2003; Lane, H., Pullen, P., Eisele,
M., & Jordan, L., 2002). Within each of these levels, certain activities range from easier to more
difficult: identifying, matching, blending/segmenting, deleting/adding/substituting.
Gillon and others (Lonigan, C., Burgess, S., Anthony, J., & Barker, T., 1998) also find that a grasp of
the easier levels of phonological skills appear at earlier ages than the more difficult phonemic
awareness skills. This means that children learning to read, or children struggling with reading, may
profit from some early attention to phonological skills not yet mastered prior to teaching phonemic
awareness.
In addition to being a key factor in beginning reading acquisition, phonological awareness
(especially phonemic awareness) has been shown to be a reliable predictor of reading success (Smith
et al., 1995; NRP, 2000). Various early reading screening assessments have different predictive
validity (Pool & Johnson, n.d.). There is also an array of diagnostic assessment tools to help teachers
design effective instruction (Lane et al., 2002).
Phonics
Everyone who has heard of the reading wars knows the two sides are (1) those who think phonics
instruction is not necessary (whole-language advocates) and (2) those who support the phonics
instruction as a part of early reading instruction (phonics advocates). For more than 30 years science
has informed us that the most effective early reading instruction does include explicit and systematic
phonics instruction. Perhaps the most influential research supporting the importance of decoding
instruction is the Simple View of Reading (Simple View).
The Simple View was proposed by Gough & Tunmer (1986) as a way to use research to settle the
basic disagreement between whole-language proponents and proponents of explicit phonics
instruction. That disagreement is whether or not the ability to decode well is essential to skilled
reading or whether strong syntactic or semantic knowledge can supplant the need for strong
decoding skills.
The Simple View proposes that both strong decoding skills and strong language comprehension skills
are needed to be a skilled reader. For research, the Simple View (Hoover & Gough, 1990) assesses
decoding as the ability to read nonsense words out of context, language comprehension as the
ability to understand text that is read aloud, and reading comprehension as the ability to understand
text read by the student.
The first research about the Simple View (Hoover & Gough,1990) and numerous studies since that
time (Catts, H., Adlof, S., & Weismer, S., 2006; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, 2011; Chen & Vellutino,
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
47
1997) have validated the basic premise of the Simple View, which is that decoding is a necessary
skill for reading comprehension, and that linguistic strength cannot make up for poor decoding skills.
The Simple View research clearly shows that strong decoding is a requisite for strong reading
comprehension. It follows that early reading instruction must ensure that children learn to decode
accurately. Further, the Simple View and subsequent research (Vellutino, F., Tunmer, W., Jaccard, J.,
& Chen, R., 2007) validates that reading deficits need to be categorized as either decoding or
linguistic deficits, with some students having both, and the specific deficits need to be addressed
separately in intervention.
The Simple View and much of the validating research do not address the type of instruction most
effective for teaching decoding. However the NRP reviewed several types of phonics programs and
compared them against programs without an emphasis on phonics instruction. Findings from the
NRP report provided strong evidence substantiating the impact of systematic phonics instruction on
learning to read.
The NRP also compared three specific types of phonics instruction: (1) synthetic phonics programs
(converting letters into sounds, then blending sounds to read the word), (2) larger unit programs (e.g.,
based on onset-rime, spelling patterns, and phonograms), and (3) other phonics programs not
covered by the other two types. All three types were significantly better than little or no phonics
emphasis. However, explicit, systematic, synthetic phonics instruction is more effective for low-SES
students and for those with learning difficulties.
Fluency
This study examined reading comprehension and word recognition effects of corrective
feedback during oral reading on the performance of readers with learning disabilities. In
a repeated measures design, students with learning disabilities read under three
treatment conditions: corrective feedback on every oral reading error, correction on
meaning change errors only, and no feedback regardless of errors. Corrective feedback
on oral reading errors had a significant positive effect on both word recognition
accuracy and reading comprehension.
Pany and McCoy, 1988
The NRP (2000) defines fluency as the ability to read a text quickly, accurately, and with proper
expression. Snow et al. (1998), state “Adequate progress in learning to read English (or any
alphabetic language) beyond the initial level depends on sufficient practice in reading to achieve
fluency with different texts.” They recommend “Because the ability to obtain meaning from print
depends so strongly on the development of word recognition accuracy and reading fluency, both
should be regularly assessed in the classroom, permitting timely and effective instructional response
when difficulty or delay is apparent.”
There is a strong correlation between oral reading fluency, measured as rate and accuracy, and
reading comprehension (although there is no evidence of causation between fluency and reading
comprehension). Oral reading fluency is easily tested with a one-minute reading assessment. The
validity and reliability of a one-minute fluency assessment have been well established in a body of
research extending over the past 25 years (Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M., & Jenkins, J., 2001).
Pikulski and Chard (2005) posit that teachers who work with beginning readers must focus
significant amounts of instructional time on basic word recognition and word analysis skills because
accuracy is a fundamental component of fluency.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
48
Research also shows the value of teachers providing immediate feedback on every error, especially
when children are learning to read. Immediate feedback helps children develop the critical habit of
reading accurately. Pany and McCoy (1988) found that third grade children with reading disabilities
who read 10% to 15% of words inaccurately during reading significantly improved their word
recognition and comprehension scores when given immediate feedback on every single error. There
was no effect on reading skills when students received feedback only on errors that altered the
meaning of the passages.
Teachers should provide beginning readers and students struggling with accuracy daily and
systematic opportunities for students to learn to read words accurately (Snow, C., Burns, M., &
Griffin, P., 1998). Pushing students to "read faster" can cause some students to begin guessing, which
negatively affects their reading comprehension.
The NRP (2000) found that the two most effective ways to develop fluency are by repeated oral
readings or guided oral repeated reading. The studies found clear improvements in a variety of
reading skills using these methods regardless of students’ reading levels or age levels, and even greater
gains were sometimes attributed to poor readers. The NRP found no evidence supporting the use of
silent reading as a way to improve reading comprehension.
Vocabulary
As a learner begins to read, reading vocabulary encountered in texts is mapped onto the
oral vocabulary the learner brings to the task. The reader learns to translate the
(relatively) unfamiliar words in print into speech, with the expectation that the speech
forms will be easier to comprehend. Benefits in understanding text by applying lettersound correspondences to printed material come about only if the target word is in the
learner’s oral vocabulary. When the word is not in the learner’s oral vocabulary, it will not
be understood when it occurs in print. Vocabulary occupies an important middle ground in
learning to read. Oral vocabulary is a key to learning to make the transition from oral to
written forms. Reading vocabulary is crucial to the comprehension processes of a skilled
reader.
National Reading Panel, 2000
In 1977 Becker observed that vocabulary knowledge was the primary factor limiting reading and
academic success beyond grade 2 of students from low-SES backgrounds. The Hart and Risley study
(1995) provided evidence of the huge gap in word knowledge that children of different SES groups
have by the time they enter school. This study prompted an increased focus on how to minimize the
vocabulary gap between high and low-SES students. (This is a particularly important study to inform
our work in Mississippi, where the concentration of poverty is high.)
The connection between reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge is strong and
unequivocal (Baumann & Kame’enui, 1991; Paul & O'Rourke, 1988; Stanovich, 1986), and there is
growing evidence indicating that variation in vocabulary knowledge is a causal determinant of
differences in reading comprehension ability (Stanovich, 1986).
A clear area of convergence in research on vocabulary development is that students who read more
have stronger vocabularies (Stanovich, 1986; Anderson & Nagy, 1991; Nagy & Anderson, 1984).
Stanovich (1986) explained how the development of strong beginning reading skills facilitated
reading, which facilitated vocabulary growth, which in turn facilitated further increases in reading
comprehension.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
49
Another area of convergence in reading research is that if students who have vocabulary deficits do
not develop strong beginning reading skills, they will not be able to successfully engage in the
extraordinary volume of reading necessary to increase their vocabularies enough to catch up with
their peers. Some researchers express concern that the status quo in beginning reading instruction is
inadequate to meet the reading and vocabulary needs of students who enter school with vocabulary
deficits compared to their peers (Adams, 1990; Liberman & Liberman, 1990).
The NRP found that much is known about the ways vocabulary increases under highly controlled
conditions, but much less is known about instruction that works in classrooms, which are not ideal,
controlled settings.
A formal meta-analysis on vocabulary was not possible by the NRP because no studies met the NRP
criteria for inclusion. Nonetheless, the NRP was able to make eight concise recommendations for
reading instruction based on a review of implicit evidence. The essence of these recommendations
includes the following five points:
1. Optimal results can only be achieved using a variety of approaches to vocabulary instruction,
including direct instruction and indirect learning.
2. Repetition and multiple exposures to vocabulary items are important, as is learning words in
rich contexts.
3. Vocabulary learning is effective when students are actively engaged in learning tasks.
4. Computer technology can effectively help teach vocabulary.
5. Vocabulary instruction should be adjusted if students are not fully understanding text they are
reading. As opposed to focusing only on words selected for instruction, adjusted instruction
would include techniques such as substitution of easy for hard vocabulary words, inclusion of
redundant information, and instruction on difficult words encountered. Adjusting instruction is
effective for all students, but most effective with low-achieving or at-risk students.
Text Comprehension
What learners are able to learn is dependent to a large extent on what they already know.
Reid, 1988
Comprehension is “the essence of reading” (Durkin, 1993). Reading is dependent on many levels of
language skill (Vellutino et al, 2007). There are many avenues to improved reading comprehension,
including the teaching of phonemic awareness, phonics, oral reading fluency, and vocabulary. As
explained in the four previous sections, all these forms of instruction influence how well students
comprehend text.
This section is limited to summarizing conclusions about improving reading comprehension from
two publications: (1) The Report of the National Reading Panel (2000) and (2) Review of the Current
Research on Comprehension Instruction: A Research Synthesis (Butler, S., Urrutia, K., Buenger, A.,
Hunt, M., et al., 2010) because they provide the relatively recent coverage of research relating to
effective teaching of reading comprehension instruction.
Summary Information from The Report of the National Reading Panel (2000)
The NRP conclusions were limited to studies that included only students who had no evident
difficulties with decoding or fluency.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
50
The NRP looked at sixteen total instructional strategies for reading comprehension. They found that
using instruction in multiple comprehension strategies, where readers and teachers interact over text
to be more effective than using only one strategy.
Fifteen single-strategy categories of instruction for reading comprehension strategies were examined.
Seven of these approaches to instruction appeared to have a firm scientific basis to conclude that
they improve reading comprehension in normal readers in either near transfer (measured by
experimenter tasks) or far transfer (measured by standardized tasks), or both. Those seven, listed in
alphabetical order, are:
• Comprehension Monitoring
• Cooperative Learning
• Graphic and Semantic Organizers including Story Maps
• Question Answering
• Question Generation
• Story Structure
• Summarization
The NRP did not find firm evidence for the effectiveness for the other eight strategies examined as
single-strategy instruction, although all were part of multiple-strategy instruction examined.
Three strategies—Psycholinguistics, Listening Actively, and Mnemonic—didn’t have enough studies
to draw any reliable conclusions.
Three strategies—Prior Knowledge, Mental Imagery, and Curriculum—did not have enough evidence
to add them to the list of single strategies with firm evidence, but may be effective when included in
multiple strategy instruction.
Two strategies—Teacher Preparation and Vocabulary-Content Knowledge—have promise, although
not enough studies exist to provide firm evidence of their near or far transfer effectiveness.
The NRP found that “the most promising lines of research within the reading comprehension
strategies area focused on teacher preparation to teach comprehension. Teachers can be helped by
intensive preparation in strategy instruction, and this preparation leads to improvement in the
performance of their students.” Teacher preparation for teaching comprehension is an area of
extreme importance for this study, and education professors should be aware that this research is
ongoing.
Summary Information from Review of the Current Research on Comprehension Instruction: A
Research Synthesis (2010)
Butler et al., (2010) used essentially the same methodology the NRP used to perform a meta-analysis
of the studies about comprehension instruction published after the NRP report. The authors found
23 studies published between 2001 and 2008 that met their criteria. This part of the report briefly
summarizes a few findings relevant to this study.
With regard to teacher practices, one finding from Taylor, B., Pearson, P., Peterson, D., Rodriguez,
M., (2003) is of particular relevance to this study. That finding is that “. . . skills instruction in
comprehension, teaching modeling, and coaching for teachers are factors in student achievement”
(Butler et al., 2010). This is consistent with the NRP’s finding that teacher preparation is an area that
promises improvement in student achievement.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
51
The NRP’s finding that multiple strategy instruction was most effective was further substantiated by
three studies (Guthrie, J., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K., Taboada, A., Davis, M., Scafiddi,
N., & Tonks, S., 2004; Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005; Guthrie, J., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N.,
Perencevich, K., Taboado, A., & Barbosa, P., 2006). The two Guthrie studies also added evidence
that stimulating, motivating tasks, such as giving students choices, hands-on activities, and
interesting text are related to more strategic readers than strategy-only classrooms. The Van Keer
study found that “second grade students who received explicit strategy instruction and then practiced
reading with cross-age (fifth-grade) tutors made similar gains to students who practiced under direct
teacher supervision. This was not true of second graders who practiced with same-age peer-tutors”
(Butler et al., 2010).
Paris and Paris (2007) provided further evidence of the importance of teaching comprehension
through read alouds and other oral activities for students before and as they learn to read.
Effective Teaching Methods
Hattie (2009) published a ground-breaking book with a synthesis of more than 800 meta-analyses
related to achievement in school-aged students. One finding provides the effect sizes for various
teaching styles and is particularly relevant for this study.
Hattie categorizes teachers as “activators” and “facilitators”, as shown below. The teaching
approaches on the left hand side below are those of teachers as activators, and those for facilitators
are on the right side.
Effectsizesforteacherasactivatorandteacherasfacilitator
Teacherasactivator
Reciprocalteaching
Feedback
Teacherstudentsself-verbalization
Meta-cognitionstrategies
DirectInstruction
Masterylearning
Goals–challenging
Frequent/effectsoftesting
Behavioralorganizers
d
0.74
0.72
0.67
0.67
0.59
0.57
0.56
0.46
0.41
Teacherasfacilitator
Simulationsandgaming
Inquiry-basedteaching
Smallerclasssizes
Individualizedinstruction
Problem-basedlearning
Differentteachingforboysandgirls
Web-basedlearning
Wholelanguage–reading
Inductiveteaching
d
0.32
0.31
0.21
0.20
0.15
0.12
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.60
Averagefacilitator
0.17
Source:Hattie,2009,page243.
Averageactivator
The data above show the strong effect sizes of Direct Instruction, which is integral to an explicit
approach to teaching early literacy (especially phonics), compared to facilitated (e.g., guided,
independent) approaches such as inquiry-based teaching and problem-based learning, which are
often a part of the balanced literacy approach.
Especially noteworthy is the low effect size of whole-language (constructivist) approaches to reading.
Professors need to understand the difference in effect sizes of various teaching approaches for two
reasons. First, so that they can incorporate the most effective teaching approaches in their own
courses. Second, so that they can inform their students of the most effective teaching approaches
and why it is critical to use them in the elementary classroom.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
52
C. Balanced Literacy Revisited
How much of the literacy problem in America is due to the way reading has been
taught? Everyone knows about the “reading wars” of the past 30 years–the debate
over “phonics” and “whole language” approaches. The 2000s saw the emergence of a
compromise called “Balanced Literacy” said to incorporate the best aspects of the
two approaches. “Balanced literacy” is a Treaty of Versailles solution that allowed
educators to declare the increasingly troublesome “wars” over without having seriously
addressed the underlying causes of the strife.
Seidenberg, 2013
Balanced Literacy Observed in Pre-Service Courses and K-3 Classrooms
The “balanced literacy” approach is a label used to characterize the reading methods taught in
almost all pre-service courses we reviewed and in all K-3 classes we observed. Balanced literacy
classrooms are driven by a top-down approach where the selection of text (whether basal, trade
books, or leveled readers) determines which skills are taught, with wide variations in sequence.
Even when phonics is taught explicitly, it is rarely systematic. Students are presented primarily with
a variety of strategies for word identification, emphasizing a heavy reliance on semantic and
syntactic cues (meaning-based), with much less reliance on grapho-phonemic (phonics) cues.
Definition of Balanced Literacy
Although balanced literacy has many definitions, almost all the definitions for the balanced literacy
approach in the early grades have some common elements.
• All skill and strategy instruction is based on “authentic” literature, which can be either a
read-aloud or a text children read themselves.
• Phonics, comprehension, and other strategies taught are based on the teacher’s perception of
the students’ needs, gleaned from observation and/or informal assessment.
• Phonics is taught within mini-lessons and/or with a “word study” approach.
• The most common reading assessments are running records that use the “three-cueing”
system to analyze a student’s errors and determine appropriate intervention.
• A combination of whole-group and small-group instruction is included in daily lessons, and
guided reading is the basis of small-group instruction. [see Glossary for definition of guided
reading in this context, as it has different interpretations in Mississippi.]
Balanced Literacy Misunderstood as a Compromise
The term “balance” when referring to reading instruction was used earliest by Chall in an effort to
quell “the great debate” (Chall, 1967), and later by Adams (1990). In calling for a systematic
approach to phonics, the NRP urged “integration…to create a balanced reading program”. In these
publications, the term “balanced” suggests (as its origins intended) an approach to teaching reading
using only the best elements of the two divergent approaches. The NRP makes it clear that this
balance for early reading instruction is to teach decoding explicitly and systematically and to use
read-alouds of quality literature for comprehension instruction, including development of rich
vocabulary.
Balanced literacy instruction occurring in Mississippi IHLs and in Mississippi K-3 classrooms is far
from what Chall, Adams, and the NRP described.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
53
Over time the term “balanced literacy” came to be interpreted as a compromise between wholelanguage advocates and phonics advocates. The compromise now called balance literacy essentially
allows for instruction based on the teacher’s observation of student needs. More often than not
balanced literacy includes implicit phonics instruction through a word study approach, or a
smattering of phonics instruction based on mistakes children make during guided reading. This is the
balanced literacy philosophy and approach that is primarily taught in Mississippi IHLs and K-3
classrooms.
For advocates of the meaning-based, whole-language approach, the term “balanced” was addressed
by inserting “mini-lessons” or word study for phonics instruction. However, phonics mini-lessons
are generally based on either: (1) words taken from the text students are reading, or (2) words that
students misread when reading text. Word study in balanced literacy instruction is “embedded
phonics”, where the students discover spelling and morphological patterns essentially through word
sorts using words linked to the texts being read (Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnson,
F., 2004).
For advocates of the code-emphasis approach the term “balanced” was addressed by reintroducing
the teaching of any phonics into the curriculum where there had been none. Some balanced literacy
programs have a phonics component (either in a stand-alone program or through a basal textbook) in
which students are systematically introduced to phonics and they read decodable text. But
universally, these programs with explicit, systematic phonics instruction also include a separate
guided reading component in which students are taught to use pictures and context before they try
“sounding the word out”. Therefore, during guided reading, students are reading words with
phonics patterns they have not learned and practicing strategies that are not based on best practices,
even if they are taught explicit and systematic phonics during one part of the program.
Our review showed that professors and K-3 schools are implementing forms of balanced literacy
described above. We heard phonics instruction within balanced literacy widely described as
“explicit” and “systematic”, two terms at the core of research findings about the most effective early
reading instruction. Yet the instructional methods taught in IHLs and used in the K-3 setting are
neither explicit nor systematic. This is due, at least in part, to pre-service textbooks and elementary
grade basals that espouse balanced literacy approaches.
Synthetic Phonics Instruction Is Minimized in Balanced Reading Instruction
In synthetic phonics instruction, students are taught to convert letters into sounds and then blend the
sounds to read the word. The NRP found that synthetic phonics programs are more effective than
other types of phonics instruction for low-SES students and for students with learning difficulties.
This is an enormously important finding for Mississippi educators because so many of our students
are low-SES.
Synthetic phonics instruction is a parts-to-whole-word approach to reading instruction. Children
learn to look at the smallest part of a word (the letter or grapheme). Other types of phonics methods,
often promoted in balanced literacy texts, were evaluated and found by Hattie (2009) to be less
effective than synthetic phonics. These methods include teaching students to look for chunks within
words such as onset-rime, spelling patterns, and phonograms. These methods of phonics instruction,
including analytic and analogic, are not as effective, especially for low-SES students and for those
with learning difficulties.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
54
Informal Reading Inventories (IRIs)
The primary purpose of IRIs is to provide a general reading level for students, and most IRIs do this
quite well. IRIs are also useful for other purposes, including: (1) informally assessing a student’s rate
and accuracy (because they have multiple passages at each grade level that teachers can use); (2)
informally assessing a student’s reading comprehension by asking questions about passages students
read with accuracy of 98% or higher; and (3) informally assessing a student’s listening
comprehension by reading a passage to the student and asking the question. Therefore, IRIs are a
useful tool that pre-service candidates should be exposed to.
However, IRIs are not useful tools for assessing a student’s phonological awareness or decoding skills
with precision, and the results of an IRI should not be used to plan phonemic awareness or phonics
instruction. A student’s performance on an IRI can be used to determine which students need further
diagnostic assessment in specific areas of reading (e.g., letter names, letter sounds, phonemic
awareness, phonics at the short vowel level), but IRIs do not provide sufficient information for a
teacher to design intervention instruction for a student who has specific skill gaps.
Early literacy courses need to teach appropriate uses for IRIs and include using other informal and
formal assessments for diagnostic purposes. This will prepare pre-service candidates to identify
reading levels when they begin teaching and to diagnose specific gaps to inform instruction.
Assessment of early literacy skills presented in Mississippi’s pre-service content is almost exclusively
through IRIs.
The Three-Cueing System
The three-cueing system is a central part of balanced literacy programs. It is based on the premise
that we use semantic, syntactic, and grapho-phonemic “cues” to “solve” words when we read.
(Sometimes pragmatics are added as a fourth cue.)
Essentially, the three-cueing system places the three types of cues in a hierarchical order of
importance when a reader encounters an unfamiliar word.
• Semantics (word meaning) is the first and most important cue. The range of possible words is
restricted by the context, so when children come to an unfamiliar word, they are taught to
use contextual cues, picture or graphic cues, or within-word cues (e.g., affixes and roots) to
guess a word that fits the context.
- The cues are “Does that word make sense?”, “What word makes sense?”, “Look at the
picture.”
• Syntax (language structure) is the second cue. Syntactic cues provide information about the
word based on the sentence structure. Because English has restrictions on word order, when
both semantics and syntax are considered, the reader can make an even more educated
guess about an unfamiliar word.
- The cue is “Does that word sound right?” or “What word sounds right?”
•
Grapho-phonemics (letter-sound information) is the third, and least important, cue. Early
readers are often taught that beginning letter sounds can enhance guessing based on
semantic and syntactic cues.
- The cue is to look at the first letter and think of a word that would make sense, sound
right, or match the picture.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
55
The three-cueing system also includes analyzing whether the error a student makes changes the
meaning of the text or not. If the error does not change the meaning, the teacher does not correct
the student.
In one textbook we reviewed, an author provides an example of a student using a syntactic clue to
incorrectly read “shop” instead of “store”. The author states that it is semantically acceptable for this
student to misread “shop” because the error did not affect the meaning of the text.
In essence, with the three-cueing system, errors made when reading only matter if the errors change
the meaning of the text. Early reading instruction based on the three-cueing system expects children
to figure out which word identification strategies work best for them, with the implication that
effective strategies will be something different for each child.
The fact is all children climb the same stairs to becoming readers. Some take them two
or three at a time, while others have to drag themselves along with as much help as they
can get, even occasionally backing down to repeat a step again and again. In the
reading process, no one skips any stairs, even if they leap over them so quickly it seems
like they did. Only the pace and automaticity differ. This doesn’t discount the
importance of language and experience that readers bring in order to comprehend. But
how can you comprehend a word before you identify it? The path to constructing
meaning from text begins at the phoneme level. The preponderance of science
supports this. And teachers must know the science.
email correspondence, May 2015
Steve Dykstra, Ph.D.
Coalition for Reading Excellence
Miscue Analysis
Miscue analysis is based on the three-cueing system. For a miscue analysis, the teacher notes the
errors (“miscues”) a student makes while reading aloud. The teacher analyzes errors the student
makes (“miscue analysis”).
When conducting an IRI or running record, the teacher categorizes the miscues according to
whether they are are “semantic”, “syntactical” or “grapho-phonemic”. The teacher uses this analysis
and other data (e.g., rate, accuracy, self-corrections) to determine the type of reading instruction
needed in order to help the student improve reading skills.
Flaws in the Three-Cueing System and Miscue Analysis
The three-cueing system correctly identifies that semantics, syntax, and grapho-phonemic systems
are required for reading. However, the primary flaws of the three-cueing system and miscue analysis
are that they: (1) incorrectly suggest that other cueing systems can compensate for poor graphophonemic processing and (2) discount the evidence that the reader must accurately decode words
before he/she can understand the text to achieve reading comprehension.
Strong readers decode words effortlessly and then discern meaning from their knowledge of the word
and/or context. Teaching or allowing students to rely on semantic and syntactic cues rather than
accurate decoding promotes guessing of words. This happens when teachers ask these widely used
prompts when a student misreads a word: “Does that word make sense?” (semantic cue); “Does that
word sound right?” (syntactic cue).
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
56
Whenever a student misreads a word, the student should be directed to look at the word or part of
the word that was misread. For example, in the sentence “The duck sat on the grass” a student might
read “sit” instead of “sat” or “glass” instead of “grass”.
The problem in the above example is that the student did not decode the word accurately, regardless
of whether the miscue is semantic or syntactic. This means that the grapho-phonemic cues are
minimized in favor of semantic and syntactic cues. This student should be directed to give attention
to all letters in the word missed, generally by sounding the word out, no matter what miscue analysis
determines is the reason for the error. This student should not be asked to think about whether the
word he/she read makes sense in the sentence or whether it sounds right (or even to look at the
picture in the case of “grass” read as “glass”, which is a popular, but faulty strategy that teachers use
with beginning readers).
Accurate and efficient decoding does not require attention to meaning, as has been shown by
numerous studies on the comparison between struggling readers and strong readers decoding
unfamiliar or nonsense words. This should not be interpreted as a failure to acknowledge that
meaning is the ultimate goal of reading. Rather, it underscores the point that struggling readers are
most often poor decoders and strong readers are most often strong decoders in these comparisons.
For early readers, encouraging guessing by using semantic and syntactic cues, rather than explicitly
teaching accurate decoding of the word, sets too many students up to become struggling readers as
text becomes more difficult. The scientific research overwhelmingly supports teaching explicit,
systematic, synthetic phonics to ensure accurate and fluent reading that leads to reading
comprehension.
If children are to be reading proficently by third grade, they need to be strong decoders, and this
requires abandoning use of the three-cueing system to guide instruction for beginning readers and for
struggling readers with decoding deficits.
Mini-Lessons
We do phonics in short mini-lessons with our guided reading. We use the text to
listen for the sounds in the sentence.
2015 student intern
Mini-lessons are short (5-10 minutes) lessons that, for phonics, teach phonics concepts, skills, and
generalizations. Phonics mini-lessons might be planned in advance or they might take advantage of
“teachable moments” that occur when students are reading. One clear aspect of mini-lessons is that
students practice the concept or skill taught while reading text or with words from text.
Although mini-lessons are often described in balanced literacy textbooks as being systematic or
explicit, they are almost never used for systematic instruction. When phonics skills and concepts are
taught through mini-lessons tied to text, skills are not taught in a specific and systematic (simplest to
complex) order, even with a graduated sequence of leveled texts. Rather, mini-lessons are mostly
determined based on gaps the teacher observes or are lessons planned based on words selected from
the text rather than on a planned, logical sequence of phonics instruction.
Comprehension Strategies within the Context of Balanced Literacy
The NRP supports direct instruction of comprehension strategies and also suggests that teacher
training in best practices for direct instruction of these strategies enhances reading comprehension.
Balanced literacy textbooks reviewed for this study generally include a number of specific
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
57
comprehension strategies (e.g., QAR/Question-Answer Relationships, DRTA/Directed Reading
Thinking Activity, Think Aloud, Reciprocal Teaching) that are supported by the NRP. Balanced
literacy texts also encourage direct teaching, modeling, and practice of comprehension strategies.
Some of the courses appropriately included activities where pre-service candidates applied direct
teaching, modeling, and practice of research-supported activities. This helps to explain the closer
alignment of content found in EL2 relative to comprehension than with the other components.
Guided Reading and Leveled Books
Guided reading, like balanced literacy, has many definitions. Guided reading is primarily a way for
teachers to help small groups understand texts, and the texts used are leveled books. Leveled books
are leveled with criteria such as:
• Length of words in the book
• Number of different words in the book
• Size and font and layout of the book
• Difficulty of vocabulary and concepts
• Predictability of words
• Complexity of language and syntax
When these criteria are applied to lower leveled books for emergent, beginning, or struggling
readers, the words are easier for students with decoding weaknesses to guess, as opposed to
sounding out the word. In guided reading, the teacher uses prompts based on the cueing system to
help students figure out unfamiliar words. These prompts include “Look at the picture” and “What
word with the same first sound makes sense?” These strategies encourage students to guess at words
as opposed to first decoding the word, and then applying context to determine whether the word
decoded makes sense.
Guided reading employs another practice that develops the habit of relying on content before
decoding. When a student makes a reading error that does not change the text’s meaning, the
teacher does not correct the student’s decoding error.
Other instructional strategies common to guided reading may fit criteria for effective comprehension
instruction. These include questioning for understanding while reading and supporting students with
background information prior to reading the text. But the guided reading strategies for word attack
do not meet the scientific evidence for best practices in reading instruction.
Contradictory Information from Balanced Literacy Texts
Thus, to the extent that meaning-oriented programs include instruction in phonic
principles, there is little opportunity to practice applying these principles in connected
reading. On the other hand, just because a program is described as a phonics program,
one cannot assume that there will be a good match between phonic generalizations
taught and opportunity to exercise the generalization in text.
Foorman, 1995
Professors stated their support of explicit, systematic early reading instruction while also teaching
activities that are more meaning or whole-language based. However, the most obvious examples of
a contradiction of instructional approaches came from our textbook reviews. This is most likely
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
58
because we observed only one or two classes that professors taught within a semester, but we
reviewed all textbook assignments for each course.
Most textbooks for EL1 and EL2 courses we reviewed stated they teach a balanced literacy approach.
On the one hand, these textbooks include statements that phonics should be taught explicitly and
systematically, and many include an appropriate and logical sequence for teaching phonics. They
all acknowledge the importance of research and the work of the NRP.
On the other hand, these textbooks all present early literacy instructional strategies that are not
backed by research. Examples from various textbooks include:
• The cueing system, and instructional strategies that include teaching students to rely on
pictures and contextual clues to “solve” unfamiliar words
• Teaching phonics through mini-lessons that use words from “authentic” books used during
language arts instruction
• Whole-word-to-parts instruction and activities (also called “authentic instruction and
activities” or "analytic phonics")
• Guided reading, with its emphasis on leveled books, mini-lessons, and the cueing system as
the basis for helping struggling readers
Research is clear that the most effective early reading instruction is explicit and systematic phonemic
awareness and early phonics instruction and separate vocabulary and comprehension instruction as
the teacher reads quality literature aloud to students. Simply calling balanced literacy texts
“research-based” and describing their approach with the words “explicit” and “systematic” does not
mean that the content or recommended instruction are actually the best research-based practices.
Indeed, all balanced literacy textbooks we reviewed clearly emphasize fully integrated early reading
instruction based on authentic literature and the cueing system rather than more explicit researchbased instruction. We also found that newer versions of textbooks reflected only modest updates in
the research.
D. The Conflict between Science and Practitioners
Educational practice has suffered greatly because its dominant model for resolving or
adjudicating disputes has been more political (with its corresponding factions and
interest groups) than scientific. The field’s failure to ground practice in the attitudes and
values of science has made educators susceptible to the “authority syndrome” as well as
fads and gimmicks that ignore evidence-based practice.
Stanovich and Stanovich, 2003
The Conflict about Early Reading Instruction Described
The constructivist theory prevalent in education today has underpinnings promulgated in the U.S. by
John Dewey and his followers as early as the late 1800s. This constructivist theory, as described by
Piaget in the mid-20th century, posits that readers construct their own meaning in the learning
process through experience, and the teacher serves as facilitator of this process.
In constructivist approaches, early reading education relies on the assumption that children learn to
read the same way they learn their native spoken language, which is a natural process occurring
through experience, not instruction. Balanced literacy incorporates that belief by putting “authentic”
or “real” reading experiences at the center of virtually all early reading instruction, including
phonics.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
59
Those who advocate for explicit, systematic phonics instruction base this position on the science that
disproves the notion that children learn to read the same way they learn to speak. Therefore,
phonics advocates use a planned sequence for explicitly and systematically teaching phonological
awareness (including phonemic awareness), letter names and sounds, and phonics concepts.
Children practice early reading with decodable words and passages. During early decoding
instruction and practice, the focus is as much on reading accurately as it is on understanding what is
read.
The Conflict Resolved
Certainly, constructivist theory and balanced literacy practices such as guided reading and minilessons have a place in the broader context of a progressive education and in domains of literacy.
Practices such as developing a deep comprehension of text, building rich vocabularies with text
exposure, and writing well-constructed text can benefit from constructivist learning, as well as direct
and explicit instruction.
Nonetheless, the science is clear. Decoding words accurately and effortlessly is a necessary
precursor to constructing meaning while reading. Phonemic awareness and phonics should be
taught directly, explicitly, and systematically in order for beginning readers to decode accurately and
effortlessly.
The research further tells us that children do not learn to read as easily or in the same way they learn
to speak. Whereas, speaking is a natural process, reading is not a natural process. Finally, there is
strong evidence that synthetic phonics instruction is significantly more effective for low-SES students
than other approaches to phonics instruction.
Two Cultures at Odds in Education
. . . one sees that science and education occupy different territory in the intellectual
world (literally so on many university campuses). The result is that people who are
studying the same thing—how children learn to read, for example—can nonetheless
have little contact. The cultures of education and science are radically different: they have
different goals and values, ways of training new practitioners, criteria for evaluating
progress. The two cultures also communicate their research at separate conferences
sponsored by parallel professional organizations attended by different audiences, and
publish their work in different journals. There are publishers that target one audience or
the other. These cross-cultural differences, like many others, are difficult to bridge.
Seidenberg, 2013
The conflicts between scientific evidence and educational practice continue today. Beck (1996)
speculates that the reason these conflicts continue is due to the power of personal observation.
Whole language and balanced literacy advocates notice the fact that some, and perhaps many,
children—especially those from print-rich environments—do not appear to need more than a few
things pointed out when learning to read, and maybe some questions answered as they engage in
what are considered “authentic literacy acts.”
Beck also notes that proponents of the importance of decoding skill instruction are motivated by
personal observation as well. These educators observe that some, and perhaps many, children do
not appear to figure out the alphabetic principle and how to decode without direct and systematic
instruction.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
60
Beck points out that the two views are not mutually exclusive, and that one view does not negate the
other. She states that this is just the type of situation for applying the scientific method to obtain
triangulated information across differing observations by different observers.
Seidenberg (2013) explains that conflicting attitudes from science and educational practitioners are
at the heart of controversies about reading instruction. The research evidence is that programs with
explicit, systematic phonics instruction result in better reading comprehension than programs
without phonics or with embedded phonics. This contradicts previous basic assumptions that
learning to read is like acquiring a first language.
Seidenberg further explains that “Many educators are dismissive of attempts to examine reading from
a scientific perspective, which is seen as sterile and reductive.” He says that educators believe that
scientific studies “cannot capture the character of the learning moment, or the chemistry of a
successful classroom (Coles, 2000).” This view was evidenced by the overwhelming rejection of the
NRP report by professors of education and other educators because the criteria “excluded studies
that educators value: mainly, observational, quasi-ethnographic studies of individual schools,
teachers, classrooms, and children that do not attempt to conform to basic principles of
experimental design or data analysis” (see, e.g., Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Rasinski, T., Yildirim, K.,
& Nageldinger, J., 2011).
The Picture in Mississippi
Cognitive science confirms that reading is not a natural process and tips the scale of the reading war
debates in favor of phonics-based instruction. The brain may be wired for language, but it must be
rewired for reading (Shaywitz, 2003; Wolf, 2007; Dehaene, 2009). In other words, to understand a
written word, one must first decode it. This is in opposition to Goodman’s “psycholinguistic
guessing game” (Goodman, 1967) in which students use context to guess the word and only confirm
the guess using “grapho-phonemic cues” when necessary.
Teachers’ skill sets must include a wide repertoire for teaching and assessing all five components of
early reading instruction explicitly, regardless of curriculum, materials, pacing guide, classroom
composition, or geographic context. It is imperative that teacher preparation for early literacy
instruction provides sufficient attention and practice to research-based instruction so teachers are
ready to effectively teach children at all levels to read on day one.
Fragile third grade reading scores and persistently low NAEP rankings in Mississippi should push us
to examine whether our ideologies are working. Even though cognitive science research about
reading is complex, professors of early reading instruction need to understand this research. They
also need to incorporate the research-based practices into the educational methodologies and
approaches they teach at the pre-service level, specifically in EL1 and EL2.
On its face, it seems blasphemous to reject something called “balanced”. Yet we must look past this
familiar but deceptive approach to what the science is clearly telling us. If Mississippi is to provide
the most effective early reading instruction for its children, the notion of “balanced literacy” has to
change.
Children must be taught directly and explicitly how to decode words based on spelling patterns. We
must stop teaching children to rely on the “psycholinguistic guessing game” theory that underlies the
current way early reading is taught. This change must begin at the pre-service level so that new
teachers arrive in the classroom equipped to teach all children to read. In doing so, we will produce
many more proficient readers by the end of third grade and give them the foundation critical for
achieving and sustaining academic success.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
61
VII. THREE BIG IDEAS
Mississippi is a small state with only 15 traditional-route teacher preparation programs. MDE is fully
engaged in K-3 literacy efforts and the Legislature appears keen to ensure that the literacy challenges
that keep us at the bottom of all reading measures are conquered. The interrelated tasks among the
various players are complex, but the road map for IHLs is clearly marked. All of us entrusted with
preparing Mississippi’s teachers of literacy are urged to consider Three Big Ideas.
Big Idea #1 ADOPT RESEARCH-BASED PRACTICES AT EVERY LEVEL OF READING EDUCATION
a) Establish research-based principles and practices in core reading courses at all 15 IHLs.
b) Focus pre-service course core content on explicit, systematic instruction for all five essential
components, plus writing, rather than on the balanced literacy approach which is more implicit and
less systematic.
c) Expand and apply knowledge of research-based practices so that teacher preparation instructors,
literacy coaches, and K-3 classroom teachers all incorporate research-based approaches to instruction.
d) Develop and apply stringent standards for state accreditation of teacher preparation programs to
require application of research-based methods in the 15-hour reading sequence.
Big Idea #2 BRING CONSISTENCY TO EARLY-LITERACY COURSE CONTENT AND DELIVERY IN
ALL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS
a)
At the pre-service level, teach all essential components of literacy--incorporating writing, assessment,
and intervention—using established research-based methods.
b) Develop pre-service core content for EL1 and EL2 course schedules, including a common set of
required readings.
c)
Develop pre-service textbook guidelines and adoption policies that insure research-based content.
d) Incorporate regular and frequent modeling of effective practices in undergraduate courses, including
using a core of approved video demonstrations showing research-based instruction.
e)
Develop a statewide network of “laboratory classrooms” in the K-3 system with skilled, paid mentor
teachers for fieldwork and practice teaching.
f)
Develop a core set of assignments for fieldwork that ensures pre-service candidates practice teaching
and assessing all early literacy skills.
g)
Add demonstration of teacher proficiencies in literacy instruction as a requirement for graduation from
an elementary education program.
Big Idea #3 DIRECTLY INVOLVE EDUCATORS IN SHAPING POLICY AND PRACTICE
a) Amend LBPA to increase intentional planning and collaboration among literacy education
policymakers and practitioners by expanding the State Reading Panel to include representation from
IHL Deans, early-literacy instructors, literacy coaches, mentor teachers, partner district principals, and
other literacy experts. Expanded functions to include:
o
Designing a credentialing process for instructors of EL1 and EL2, with all instructors gaining
early literacy credential by 2020.
Developing a set of Evidenced-based Literacy Instruction Principles to guide all pre-service
teacher training, in-service professional development, and K-3 coaching and instruction in
Mississippi.
o Organizing and monitoring the execution of Big Idea #2.
o Proactively advising the legislature and the MDE on all policy and other issues related to early
literacy.
b) Revise the State’s program accreditation process to ensure consistent application of high standards to
pre-service elementary education programs that will support full implementation of evidence-based
practices in early-literacy instruction.
o
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
62
VIII. GLOSSARY
Note: Items with an asterisk (*) are not in the Statewide Report but may appear in one or more of
the individual institutional reports.
Alphabetics – The science dealing with the representation of spoken sounds with letters.
*Analogical approach – An approach to phonics instruction in which students learn to recognize a
new word because it shares a spelling pattern with a known word (e.g., I can read the unfamiliar
word 'bike' because I recognize 'ike' from the known word 'like').
*Analytical phonics approach – An approach to teaching decoding. Students learn to analyze lettersound relations by paying attention to the whole word first, then the initial and final letters, and
context clues. Students are expected to deduce spelling patterns after repeated exposure to whole
words.
Authentic text – Text written for purposes other than language/reading instruction that has not been
altered (e.g., controlled for vocabulary, rewritten to achieve a specific readability level). Also
sometimes called "real text.”
Background knowledge (also knows as domain and topic knowledge) – Knowledge students have
learned formally in school or other learning situations or informally, through experience, reading,
etc. Background knowledge is one of the cognitive capacities that readers bring to the task of
reading.
Balanced literacy – An approach to literacy instruction that has many definitions. Most definitions
include these elements:
• Students apply skills and strategies using authentic literature, or words from authentic literature,
that can be either a read-aloud, or a text they read themselves.
• Instruction is adjusted based on the teacher’s perception of the students’ needs, which may be
based on observation or informal assessment.
• A combination of whole-group and small-group instruction is included in daily lessons, and
small group instruction is generally guided reading with leveled readers.
• Phonics is taught in mini-lessons and/or with a “word study” approach.
Basal textbooks – A set of texts written specifically as a core reading program. Stories, expository
passages, and poems are chosen to illustrate and develop specific skills, which are taught in a predetermined sequence. Teacher's editions provide lesson plans. Many current basal programs include
student workbooks or on-line activities.
Bottom-up approach – see Synthetic phonics
Comprehension instruction – Generally refers to reading or text comprehension instruction. Reading
comprehension is the ability to derive accurate and reasonable meaning from written material and to
extend that meaning to other texts. Reading or text comprehension is the final goal of reading
instruction. The Simple View of Reading tells us that both strong decoding skills (word recognition)
and strong linguistic (language) comprehension abilities are necessary for reading comprehension.
Constructivism – A philosophical approach to learning and teaching. Constructivists believe
students create their own knowledge and understanding from what they encounter and by reflecting
on their own experiences. The constructivist philosophy of reading instruction favors a holistic,
whole language approach to reading.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
63
Cueing system – see Three-cueing system.
Curriculum-based Measurement (CBM) – A method of monitoring student progress through direct
and continuous assessment of academic skills. CBMs are standardized, timed assessments that assess
student performance against criterion-referenced benchmarks and national norms. CBMs are most
often used to measure basic skills in reading and mathematics.
Decoding – The process of translating print into speech. Beginning readers decode words by
matching a letter or combination of letters to their sounds and blending the sounds into words.
Efficient decoding is based on rapidly and automatically recognizing spelling patterns for words and
syllables.
Decodable text – Text that is written only with words a student has been explicitly taught to decode
and irregularly spelled high frequency that have been specifically taught.
DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills) – A set of nationally normed curriculum-based
assessments used in grades K-6 for benchmark and progress monitoring assessment. DIBELS is
available for free download from https://dibels.uoregon.edu.
Direct instruction – An instructional approach including planned, teacher-directed instruction of
new materials in clearly explained small steps with guided practice and systematic feedback and
corrections from the teacher.
Embedded phonics instruction – Teaching students to analyze letter-sound relations using words
from texts students are reading. Embedded phonics lessons are often mini-lessons based on either
words the teacher selects from the text or words the students have missed while reading.
*Emergent literacy – A term used to describe the stage of development during which children
acquire the foundational knowledge about language and print required for learning to read and
write. For most children, the emergent literacy stage begins at birth and continues through the
preschool years.
Evidence-based – Refers to practices that have been shown to be successful in improving reading
achievement. The success of these practices is demonstrated in two ways: by research-study data
collected according to rigorous design, and by consensus among expert practitioners who monitor
outcomes as part of their practice. These results—whether scientific data or expert consensus—must
be valid and reliable and come from a variety of sources (Reading Excellence Act, 1999).
Explicit, systematic, sequential instruction – Instruction that directly teaches what the student is
expected to know and will be assessed on, builds from the simple to the complex, and is cumulative.
In explicit, systematic, sequential instruction, what is taught follows a planned and ordered progress
in a definite and highly organized manner leaving nothing to implication. Explicit instruction may
be applied to any instruction, not just reading.
Four-part Processing Model – A model from an artificial intelligence project by Seidenberg &
McClelland (1989) that describes four distinct, interactive, and necessary brain functions (processing
units) activated during the reading process. The four processors are: phonology (sound/speech),
orthography (symbols/print), meaning (word/semantic), and context (schema/structure/syntax). When
compared with the three-cueing system, the research behind the four part processing model
emphasizes the importance of each function in the reading process and demonstrates that one
stronger function cannot compensate for a weaker one. The Four-part Processing Model is taught in
LETRS professional development.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
64
Five essential components of reading – In 2000, the report of the National Reading Panel’s metaanalysis of the literature on reading instruction focused on 5 components of reading that were
deemed essential for the most effective reading programs: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and comprehension. Sometimes referred to as the “five elements of reading
instruction”.
Fluency – The ability to read with accuracy and reasonable speed. Oral reading fluency is the ability
to read aloud with accuracy, reasonable speed, and appropriate expression (prosody).
Formal assessment – Standardized measures that have data supporting the conclusions made from
the test. Scores such as percentiles, stanines, or standard scores are most commonly from this type of
assessment.
Four-cueing system – See Three-Cueing system
Guided reading – A method of literacy instruction that is open to many interpretations. In their
review of the history of the term, Ford and Opitz (2008) state: "Regardless of decade or author, all
agree that guided reading is planned, intentional, focused instruction where the teacher helps
students, usually in small group settings, learn more about the reading process." Small groups for
guided reading generally have students who have been assessed at similar reading levels.
*Heuristic – A method or process that enables a person to discover or learn something for
themselves. The RAND study called “Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in
Reading Comprehension” includes a heuristic for thinking about reading.
Informal assessment – Assessment used to evaluate an individual student's skills, performance, and
progress. Informal assessment does not compare a student against a statistical norm. There are
many types of informal assessments, including teacher observation, running records, end-of-unit
tests, pop quizzes, etc.
Informal reading inventory (IRI) – An individually administered informal oral reading assessment
used to determine a student’s independent, instructional, and frustrational reading levels. There are
many informal reading inventories available, including the Analytical Reading Inventory (Woods &
Moe), the Comprehensive Reading Inventory (Cooter, Flynt & Cooter), and the Qualitative Reading
Inventory (Caldweek & Leslie) (which are texts listed for courses observed in this study).
Implicit phonics – An approach to teaching phonics where students discover phonics patterns from
known words during planned literacy activities or while reading “authentic” text. Word study with
an emphasis on word sorts is an example of implicit phonics instruction.
Jigsaw – A method for addressing written material where individuals or groups of individuals within
a class are responsible for reading a subset of material (e.g., chapter of a textbook, section of an
article) and summarizing its content for the benefit of the class.
LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) – A professional development
series of books, workshops, and on-line courses about reading, writing, spelling, and other languagerelated skills for K-12 teachers, administrators, and paraprofessionals. LETRS is the professional
development program adopted by the Mississippi Department of Education as part of the Literacybased Promotion Act.
Leveled text – Text that that has been assigned a reading level based on various factors (e.g.,
vocabulary, number of different words, support from context, support from pictures, page layout).
Leveled texts are used to help students select books that are within their reading ability and to select
books for small-group guided reading instruction with students at approximately the same level.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
65
Language comprehension – Understanding and taking meaning from oral or written language. In the
Simple View of Reading, language comprehension is measured with a listening comprehension
assessment. Language comprehension is sometimes referred to as “linguistic comprehension”.
*Language-experience activity – An activity during which a child tells about an experience (or a
group of children each contribute a sentence about a shared experience), and the teacher prints
exactly what the child says. The teacher reads the printed passage aloud one or more times while
pointing to each word as it is read. Next, the children and the teacher read in unison as the teacher
points to each word. This activity helps children understand that print represents speech, learn that
reading and writing move from left to right and top to bottom, and think about experiences that they
can describe.
*"Look-say" approach – See whole word approach
Mini-lessons – Mini-lessons are short lessons (5-15 minutes) that focus on teaching students a
procedure, behavior, or strategy. The teacher bases the mini-lesson topic on the observed or
assessed needs of the students. A mini-lesson may include an explanation about why the lesson is
important for reading. During a mini-lesson, the teacher describes and models what is being taught.
Student practice follows the modeling. Mini-lessons may be planned or extemporaneous, and they
can be taught individually, in a small group, or to a whole class. Often the mini-lesson is related to a
larger lesson to follow.
Miscue analysis – An analytical procedure for assessing student's reading comprehension based on
samples of oral reading. Miscue analysis is predicated on the belief that students' mistakes when
reading are not random errors but, actually their attempt to make sense of the text with their
experiences and language skills. The term ‘miscue’ was coined by Kenneth Goodman (1967) to use
instead of “errors” when students misread a word because the term “miscue” avoids value
implications. In Goodman’s article, he explains that when a student makes a miscue that affects the
meaning of the passage, the teacher should correct that miscue. However, if the miscue does not
affect the meaning of the passage, the teacher should not correct the mistake.
Modeling – A part of instruction where the teacher demonstrates a skill or task or verbalizes thought
processes while reading or writing.
Oral language – A spoken code made up of rules that include what words mean, how to put them
together, and what words are best for different situations. The development of oral language is a
critical foundation for reading comprehension. Oral language activities and phonological awareness
activities are sometimes confused. Oral language activities build vocabulary and the ability to use
words appropriately. On the other hand, phonological awareness activities (which include
phonemic awareness activities) build awareness of word parts such as syllables, onset and rime, and
phonemes.
Phonemic awareness – the ability to identify, distinguish, and manipulate the individual sounds
(phonemes) in a spoken word without reference to letters. Phonemic awareness is the highest level
of phonological awareness, which is the awareness of all types of speech sounds (e.g., syllable,
onset-rime, phoneme). All phonemic awareness activities are oral and do not involve print.
Phonological awareness – The conscious awareness of all levels of speech sounds in words,
including syllables, onset-rime, and phonemes. Phonological awareness activities including
identifying, blending, segmenting, and manipulating syllables, onset-rime, and phonemes in words.
Phonemic awareness is a subcategory of phonological awareness. All phonological awareness
activities are oral and do not involve print.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
66
Phonics instruction – A way of teaching reading that stresses the acquisition of letter sound
correspondences and their use in reading and spelling. The primary focus of early phonics
instruction is to help beginning readers understand how letters are linked to sounds (phonemes) to
form letter-sound correspondences and spelling patterns, and to help beginning readers learn to
apply this knowledge in their reading.
*Predictable text – A text that contains words or phrases that are repeated over and over again, often
with words that aren’t repeated having a close alignment with pictures or some aspect of the text,
such as rhyming words.
*Readability level – A level of textual difficulty based on objective measurements of factors such as
the average number of words per sentence and the average number of syllables per word.
Research-based – Founded on an accumulation of evidence obtained from accepted scientific
research.
Response to Intervention – (commonly abbreviated RtI or RTI). An approach to the early
identification and support of students with learning and behavior needs. RtI mandates the use of
research-based academic and/or behavioral interventions. RtI includes universal screening of all
children and generally includes three tiers of instruction. Tier 1 is high quality, scientifically based
classroom instruction. Tier 2 is targeted intervention for students not making adequate progress in
the regular classroom. Tier 3 is intensive, targeted instruction for students not making adequate
progress in Tier 2. Students who do not achieve the desired level of progress in response to Tier 3
intervention are referred for a comprehensive evaluation and considered for eligibility for special
education services. Multi-tiered System of Support (MTSS) is a term related to RtI. Sometimes the
terms are used interchangeably. However, the distinction between the two is that MTSS emphasizes
a system-wide responsibility for student support, at all grade levels and throughout the district or
state, whereas RtI can be implemented at any level (e.g., classroom, grade, school, district).
Running record – an informal assessment during which a teacher listens to a student read a text
aloud and records errors made while reading and also notes other reading behaviors. The text used
for the running record should be what the teacher considers to be the student’s reading level. There
is a set code for recording errors by type (e.g., substitutions, omissions, insertions, self-corrections).
The student’s words correct per minute and accuracy rates are calculated. Errors are then
categorized, based on the cueing system, as semantic, syntactic, or grapho-phonemic. Running
records are used to inform instruction and to move students up or down in their reading levels.
Sight word – A frequently occurring decodable word that can be read without conscious use of
decoding skills or a frequently occurring non-decodable word that can be recognized by
memorization.
STAR Tests – Proprietary computer-adaptive tests used in grades PreK-12 to assess skills in the areas
of early literacy, reading, and math and aligned with MCCRS. STAR Early Literacy assesses literacy
and numeracy skills in 8 domains, including language, foundational skills, and numbers and
operations. STAR Reading assesses skills across eleven domains, including language, foundational
skills, and reading literature and informational text. STAR Math assesses skills across 11 domains,
including operations and algebraic thinking and the number system. Computer-adaptive tests similar
to STAR and developed by the same company (Renaissance Learning) are used for Mississippi’s
Kindergarten readiness and third grade summative assessments (M-KAS2/MS K-3).
Synthetic phonics (also known as bottom-up approach) – An approach to teaching decoding.
Instruction starts with teaching the phonemes (individual sounds) and graphemes (spellings of
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
67
individual sounds) in isolation. Next, students are taught to sound out words by blending letter
sounds (synthesizing) to pronounce the written word. One-to-one spellings are mastered first (e.g.,
cat spells /k/ /ă/ /t/) and more complex spellings later (e.g., bleach spells /b/ /l/ /ē/ /ch/).
*Text set – A collection of resource materials with different reading levels, genres, and media
organized around a specific topic or theme.
Three-cueing system – A model that includes three strategies, or cues, readers use to “solve”
unfamiliar words in text: semantic, syntactic, and grapho-phonemic. Some cueing systems include a
fourth cue, pragmatics (use of language in social context).
Top-down approach – See Whole language approach
Trade book – Published literature, not written for the purpose of specific instruction in reading skills.
Universal screener - Quick, low-cost, repeatable tests of age-appropriate skills to all students.
Schools typically administer universal screeners to all students three times a year. These assessments
give educators and administrators two important pieces of information. First, they provide evidence
to help assess how well the core curriculum and instruction are working in the school. Second,
universal screening identifies those students who may not be making expected progress and who
may need additional diagnostic assessment and/or intervention. Universal screening is part of the
Response to Intervention process. Curriculum-based measurements are popular universal screeners.
Vocabulary instruction – Instruction about the meanings of words. There are two types of vocabulary
to be considered during instruction: oral and print. Oral vocabulary includes listening vocabulary
(words we understand when others speak) and speaking vocabulary (words we use and understand
when speaking to others). Print vocabulary includes reading vocabulary (words we understand in
print) and writing vocabulary (words we understand and use when writing.)
Whole language approach (also known as top-down approach) – A holistic approach to reading
instruction. The focus of all reading instruction, including early reading instruction, is on 'making
meaning'. Accurate word reading is not considered important if a word can be discerned using
context and the reader’s interpretation of the word does not impair comprehension of the text. The
whole language approach relies on the constructivist theory for how learning occurs (Hattie, 2009).
Whole word approach (also called the “look-say” approach) – An approach to early reading
instruction. Children are taught to read words as whole units. In early reading instruction, students
learn whole words through exposure to texts in which topics are familiar, words are repeated, and
illustrations support meaning. If phonics is taught, it is based on discovering and relating phonics
principles from known sight words.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
68
IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blue = References in Statewide Report
About 6+1 Trait® Writing. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/traits/about-61-traitwriting
Adams, M. J., Foorman, B. R., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). The elusive phoneme: Why it is so
important and how to help children develop it. American Educator, (Spring/Summer).
doi:10.1007/springerreference_180390
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Adams, M. J. (1998). Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning (F. Lehr, Author). New York:
Guilford Press.
Adams, M. J. (2002). The three-cueing system. In Guzzetti, B. (Ed.), Literacy in America: An
encyclopedia of history, theory, and practice (pp. 73–99). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Allen, M. (2003). Eight Questions on Teacher Preparation: What Does the Research Say? A Summary
of the Findings. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Allington, R. (2007). Review of “Whole language high jinks: How to tell when ‘scientifically-based
reading instruction’ isn’t.” Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-whole-languagehigh-jinks-how-tell-when-scientifically-based-reading-instruction-is
Allington, R., & Pressley, M. (2015). Reading instruction that works, 4th edition. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. (2010). How Learning
Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Resource Library. (2013). The
changing teacher preparation profession. Retrieved from
https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=145
Anderson, R. C. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Anderson, R., & Nagy, W. (1991). Word meanings. In Barr, R., Kamil, M., Mosenthal, P. & Pearson,
P. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 690–724). New York, NY: Longman.
Aouad, J., & Savage, R. (2009). The component structure of preliteracy skills: Further evidence for the
Simple View of Reading. Canadian journal of school psychology, 24(2), pp. 183–200. Retrieved
from http://doi.org/10.1177/0829573509336280
Bailey, R. A. (2011). Conscious discipline: 7 basic skills for brain smart classroom management.
Oviedo, FL: Loving Guidance.
Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M., (2000). Reforming teacher education preparation and licensing.
Teachers College Record 102(1), 5–27. Retrieved from
http://www.tcrecord.org/Issue.asp?volyear=2000&number=1&volume=102
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In Barton, D., Hamilton, M. & Ivanic, R. (Eds.),
Situated literacies: Theorising reading and writing in context (pp. 7–15). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Baumann, J., & Kame’enui, E. (1991). Research on vocabulary instruction: Ode to Voltaire. In Flood,
J., Lapp, J., & Squire, J. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp.
604-632). New York, NY: MacMillan.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
69
Baumann, J. F., & Kameenui, E. J. (2004). Direct and Rich Vocabulary Instruction. In Vocabulary
instruction: Research to practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnson, F. (2004). Words their way: Word study for
phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Beaver, J. (1997). Developmental reading assessment. Upper Arlington, OH: Upper Arlington City
Schools.
Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on
lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 506-521.
doi:10.1037//0022-0663.74.4.506
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Beck, I. (1996). Discovering reading research: Why I didn’t go to law school. Paper presented at
the Reading Hall of Fame. New Orleans, LA: International Reading Association.
Becker, W. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged: What we have learned
from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518–543.
Berry, B., Fuller, E., Reeves, C., Laird, E. (2007). Linking teacher and student data to improve teacher
and teacher quality. Retrieved from https://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/wpcontent/uploads/files/events/resources/Meetings-DQC_Quarterly_Issue_Brief_031207.pdf
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. New York, NY: Society for
Research into Higher Education & Open University Press/McGraw Hill Education.
Birsch, J. (2005). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Blevins, W. (2006). Phonics from A to Z: A practical guide. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.
Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York,
Toronto: Longmans, Green.
Blumenfeld, S. (1976). Children taught with look-say method lack all sense of precision of letters.
Speech retrieved from http://www.donpotter.net/pdf/blumenfelds-rrf-speech.pdf
Bond, G. & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction.
Reprinted in Reading Research Quarterly, 32(4) 348-427.
Borich, G. D. (2008). Observation skills for effective teaching. Columbus, OH: Merrill Pub.
Bornfreund, L. (2011). Getting in sync: Revamping licensure and preparation for teachers in pre-k,
kindergarten and the early grades. Retrieved from https://www.newamerica.org/educationpolicy/getting-in-sync-revamping-licensure-and-preparation-for-teachers-in-pre-k-kindergartenand-the-early-grades/
Boushey, G., & Moser, J. (2009). The CAFE book: Engaging all students in daily literacy
assessment & instruction. Portland, Me.: Stenhouse.
Brame, C. (n.d.). Writing good multiple choice test questions. Retrieved from
https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/writing-good-multiple-choice-test-questions
Brockman, J. (2015). This idea must die: Scientific theories that are blocking progress. New York, NY:
Harper Collins Publishers.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Butler, S., Urrutia, K., Buenger, A., & Hunt, M. (2010). A review of the current research on
comprehension instruction. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/compfinal.pdf
Caldwell, J. S., & Leslie, L. (2013). Strategies to follow informal reading inventory and assessments.
Boston, MA: Pearson.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
70
Carreker, S., & Birsh, J. R. (2005). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Baltimore, MD: P.H.
Brookes Pub.
Catts, H., Adlof, S., & Weismer, S. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: a case for the
simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293.
Center for Teaching. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guidelines-sub-pages/writinggood-multiple-choice-test-questions/
Chait, R., & Miller, R. (2010). Treating different teachers differently. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2010/03/10/7524/treating-differentteachers-differently/
Chall, J. S., (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chard, D. J., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1998). Word recognition: Research bases. In What
reading research tell us about children with diverse learning needs (pp. 143-168). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Chen, R., & Vellutino, F. (1997). Prediction of reading ability: A cross-validation study of the simple
view of reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 29(1), 1–24.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education.
Retrieved from http://www.lonestar.edu/multimedia/SevenPrinciples.pdf
Clay, M. M. (1994). Reading recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Coggshall, J., Bivona, L. & Reschly, D. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of teacher preparation
programs for support and accountability. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for
Teacher Quality.
Coles, G. (2000). Misreading reading: The bad science that hurts children. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Coletti, C. (2013). Blueprint for a Literate Nation. New Haven, CT: Tremaine Foundation.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and others don’t. New
York, NY: HarperCollins.
Collins, M. D., & Cheek, E. H. (1999). Assessing & guiding reading instruction. New York: McGrawHill Companies.
Cooter, R. B., Flynt, E. S., & Cooter, K. S. (2007). Comprehensive reading inventory: Measuring
reading development in regular and special education classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: facts, trends, and emerging
issues. Retrieved from http://ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-State-of-LD.pdf
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2013). CAEP accreditation standards as
approved by the CAEP board of directors, August 29, 2013 and amended by the CAEP board of
directors, February 13, 2015. Washington, DC: Author.
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (2013). CAEP accreditation standards
(Introduction). Retrieved from http://caepnet.org/standards/introduction
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (2013). CAEP accreditation standards.
Retrieved from https://caepnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/final_board_approved1.pdf
Criscuolo, N. (1970). A look at linguistic readers. Reading Horizons, 10(3). Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol10/iss3/5
Crowe, E., Allen, M., & Coble, C. (2013). A good time for progress in teacher prep. Education Week,
32(35), 38.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
71
Crowe, E. (2010). Measuring what matters: A stronger accountability model for teacher education
(Executive summary). Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
Cunningham, P. M. (2013). Phonics They Use: Words for Reading and Writing.
Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: Debating the evidence.
Retrieved from http://people.ucsc.edu/~ktellez/d_hammond.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Teacher learning through assessment. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2013/09/12/73978/teacher-learningthrough-assessment/
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Why the NCTQ teacher prep ratings are nonsense. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/06/18/why-the-nctq-teacher-prepratings-are-nonsense
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world : What
teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Ducommun, C. (2010). Recognizing and developing effective teaching:
What policy makers should know and do. Retrieved from
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/Effective_Teaching_-_Linda_Darling-Hammond.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy
and practice. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED431368
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R., & Johnson, C. (2009). Teacher preparation and teacher learning: A
changing policy landscape. Handbook of Education Policy Research, 613–636.
Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The new science of how we read. New York, NY: Penguin
Books.
DeMonte, J. (2013). Who is in charge of teacher preparation? Retrieved from
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/DeMonteTeacherPrep-brief-1.pdf
Dewey, J., (1896). The university school. University Record 1, 417–419.
Dillon, D., O’Brien, D., Sato, M., & Kelly, C. (2010). Professional development and teacher
education for reading instruction. Handbook of Reading Research. (pp. 629-660).
Dobler, E., Johnson, D., & Wolsey, T. D. (2103). Teaching the language arts: Forward
thinking in today's classrooms. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.
Dow, Roger S., & Baer, G. T. (2012). Self-paced Phonics: A Text for Educators.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall
Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Dykstra, S. (2015). Personal email.
Educational Testing Service. (2014). Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grades K–6. Retrieved from
https://www.ets.org/s/praxis/pdf/0622.pdf
Ehri, L. C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. J Research in Reading
Journal of Research in Reading, 18(2), 116-125. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.1995.tb00077.x
Eldredge, J. L., & Eldredge, J. L. (2005). Teach decoding: Why and how. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS.
(2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read (N/A).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Fang, Z. (2004). Literacy teaching and learning: Current issues and trends. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
72
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1991). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual alternatives. East Lansing,
MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education; Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information
Center.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and
sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2012). Teachers as learners. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Felton, R., (2010). An overview of reading: Reading problems and effective reading programs.
Retrieved from http://picusodden.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/Felton_Reading_Overview_September_2010.pdf
Felton, R. (2011). Developing automaticity and fluency. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsip.org/reading/Developing-Automaticity-and-Fluency.pdf
Felton, R. (2011). Teaching letter sound associations. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsip.org/reading/Teaching-Letter-Sound-Associations.pdf
Felton, R. (2011). Teaching word identification and spelling word identification. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsip.org/reading/Teaching-Word-Identification-and-Spelling-Word-Identification.pdf
Feuer, M., Floden, R., Chudowsky, N., & Ahn, J. (2013). Evaluation of teacher preparation programs:
Purposes, methods, and policy options. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.
Retrieved from
http://www.naeducation.org/cs/groups/naedsite/documents/webpage/naed_085581.pdf
Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC:
Center for Applied Linguistics.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2011). Improving adolescent literacy: Content area strategies at work. Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Flesch, R. (1993). Why Johnny can’t read: And what you can do about it. Cutchogue, NY: Buccaneer
Books. (Original work published 1955).
Florida Center for Reading Research. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.fcrr.org/
Ford, M., & Opitz, M. (2008). Guided reading: Then and now. In Fresch M. (Ed.), An Essential
History of Current Reading Practices (pp. 66-81). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Foorman, B. (1995). Research on "the great debate": Code-oriented versus whole language
approaches to reading instruction. School Psychology Review, 24(3), 376–392.
Forzani, F. (2011). The work of reform in teacher education. Retrieved from
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/89656
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fox, B. J. (2010). Phonics and structural analysis for the teacher of reading: Programmed
for self-instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Frayer, D., Frederick, W. C., & Klausmeier, H. J. (1969). A schema for testing the level of
cognitive mastery. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, P.G., & Simmons, D.C. (l997). Peer-Assisted Learning
Strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational
Research Journal, 34, 174-206.
Fuchs, L, Fuchs, D., Hosp, M., & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading
competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3),
239–256.
Fuller, E. (2014). Shaky methods, shaky motives: A critique of the national council of teacher
quality’s review of teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(1), 63–77.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
73
Gabrieli, J. (2009). Dyslexia: a new synergy between education and cognitive neuroscience. Science
325(5938), 280–283.
Gawande, A. (2009). The checklist manifesto: How to get things right. New York, NY: Metropolitan
Books.
Gillingham, A., Stillman, B. W., & Gillingham, A. (2014). The Gillingham manual: Remedial training
for students with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. Cambridge, MA:
Educators Pub. Service.
Gillon, G. (2003). Phonological awareness: From research to practice. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Glaser, D., & Moats, L. (2008). LETRS® foundations: An introduction to language and
literacy. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Goff, P. (2014). Decodable words versus predictable text. Bulletin 46(3). Retrieved
https://www.ldaustralia.org/client/documents/Bulletin%20Summer%202015.pdf
Goldhaber, D. & Liddle, S. (2012). The gateway to the profession: Assessing teacher preparation
programs based on student achievement. (CALDER working paper 65). Washington, DC:
National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED529165
Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., & Smith, S. (2003). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills.
Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services.
Goodlad, J., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. (1990). Places where teachers are taught. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Goodman, K. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist,
6(4), 126–135. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/19388076709556976
Goodman, K. (1973). Miscue Analysis: Applications to Reading Instruction. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearing
House on Reading and Communication Skills.
Goodman, K. (2006). What’s whole in whole language: 20th anniversary edition. Muskegon,
Michigan: RDR Books.
Goodman, Y. (Nov 1989). Roots of the whole-language movement. The Elementary School Journal,
90(2), 113–127.
Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special
Education, 7(1), 6–10. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
Gough, P. B., & Juel, C. (1991). The first stages of word recognition. In Learning to read: Basic
research and its implications (pp. 47-56). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann
Educational Books.
Graves, M. F., Juel, C., & Graves, B. B. (2004). Teaching Reading in the
21st Century. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Gray, W. S. (1956). The new basic readers. Chicago: Scott, Foresman.
Greenberg, J., McKee, A., & Walsh, K. (2013). Teacher prep review: A review of the nation's teacher
preparation programs. Retrieved from
http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Teacher_Prep_Review_2013_Report
Gunning, T. G. (2009). Assessing and correcting reading difficulties. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gunning, T. G. (2010). Creating literacy instruction for all students in grades 4-8. Boston:
Pearson.
Gunning, T. G. (2013). Creating literacy instruction for all students.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
74
Guthrie, J., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K., Taboada, A., Davis, M., Scafiddi, N., & Tonks,
S. (2004). Increased reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading
instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403–423. Retrieved from
http://www.cori.umd.edu/research-publications/2004-guthrie-wigfield-etal.pdf
Guthrie, J., Wigfield, A. , Humenick, N., Perencevich, K., Taboada, A., & Barbosa, P., (2006).
Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. Journal of Educational
Research, 99(4), 232–245. Retrieved from http://www.cori.umd.edu/research-publications/2006guthrie-wigfield-hum.pdf
Hancock, M. R. (2007). Language arts: Extending the possibilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral Reading Fluency Norms: A Valuable Assessment Tool for
Reading Teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-644. doi:10.1598/rt.59.7.3
Harp, B., & Brewer, J. A. (2004). The informed reading teacher: Research-based practice. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrrill/Prentice Hall.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American
children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London: Routledge.
Hauser, R. (1996). Trends in black-white test score differentials: I. Uses and misuses of NAEP/SAT
data. Retrieved from https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/96-29.pdf
Hausfather, S. (2010). Laboratory schools to professional-development schools. Retrieved from
http://blogs.maryville.edu/shausfather/vita/lab-schools-to-pds/
Haynes, M. (2015). The next chapter: supporting literacy within ESEA. Retrieved from
http://all4ed.org/reports-factsheets/literacywithinesea/
Heibert, E., & Taylor. B. (1994). Getting reading right from the start: Effective early literacy
interventions. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Holmes Group. (1986) Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED270454
Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools of education: A report of the Holmes Group. Retrieved
from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED399220
Honig, B., Diamond, L., & Gutlohn, L. (2000). Teaching reading sourcebook: For kindergarten
through eighth grade. Novato, CA: Arena Press.
Hoover, W., & Gough, P. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127–160.
http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799
Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & May, H. (2012). Retaining teachers: How preparation matters. Educational
Leadership, 69(8), 30–34.
Institute for Education Sciences (2007), Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve
Student Learning
International Dyslexia Association. (2010). Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of
reading. Retrieved from http://eida.org/knowledge-and-practices/
International Literacy Association. (2010). Standards for reading professionals. Retrieved from
http://www.literacyworldwide.org/get-resources/standards/standards-for-reading-professionals
International Literacy Association. (2015). Preliminary report on teacher preparation for early literacy
instruction. Retrieved from http://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-westand/teacher-preparation-report.pdf
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
75
International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). Standards for teachers. Retrieved from
http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards/standards-for-teachers
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (2013). Model core teaching standards
and learning progressions for teachers 1.0. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School
Officers.
Jacobs, J. S., & Tunnell, M. O. (1996). Children's literature, briefly. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind: What being poor does to kids' brains and what
schools can do about it. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Jeynes, W., & Littell, S. (Sep 2000). A meta-analysis of studies examining the effect of whole
language instruction on the literacy of low-SES students. The Elementary School Journal, 101(1),
21-33.
Johns, J. L., & Lenski, S. D. (2005). Improving reading: Strategies and resources. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Johns, J. L. (2008). Basic reading inventory: Pre-primer through grade twelve and early literacy
assessments. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Pub.
Kagan Publishing & Professional Development. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.kaganonline.com/catalog/SmartCards.php
Kelcey, B. (2015). Considering heterogeneity: Advancing the use of value-added assessments.
Cincinnati, Ohio: University of Ohio.
Kindle, K. (2015). Selecting words for instruction during primary read-alouds. Reading Horizons,
54(1). Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3243&context=reading_horizons
Kirby, S., McCombs, J., Barney, H., & Naftel, S. (2006). Reforming teacher education: Something old,
something new. Retrieved from
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG506.pdf
Konnikova, M. (2015). How children learn to read. Retrieved from
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/how-children-learn-read
Krashen, S. (2002). Defending whole language: The limits of phonics instruction and the efficacy of
whole language instruction. Reading Improvement, 39(1), 32–42.
Lane, H., Pullen, P., Eisele, M., & Jordan, L. (2002). Preventing reading failure: Phonological
awareness assessment and instruction. Preventing School Failure 46(3), 101–110.
Learning and Reading Research Consortium. (2015). Learning to read: Should we keep things
simple? Reading Research Quarterly, 50(2), 151–169.
Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 techniques that put students on the path to college.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2011). Qualitative reading inventory. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Retrieved from
http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf
Liberman, I., & Liberman, A. (1990). Whole language vs. code emphasis: Underlying assumptions
and their implications for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 40, 51-76.
Lonigan, C., Burgess, S., Anthony, J., & Barker, T. (1998). Development of phonological sensitivity in
two- to five-year-old children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 294–311.
Lynch-Brown, C., Tomlinson, C. M., & Tomlinson, C. M. (1999). Essentials of children's literature.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Mann, H. (1844). Report to the Massachusetts Board of Education. In Cremin, L., (Ed.), The republic
and the school: Horace Mann on the education of free men (1957), 79-80, 84-97.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
76
Mather, N., Sammons, J., & Schwartz, J. (2006). Adaptations of the Names Test: Easy-to-Use Phonics
Assessments. The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 114-122. doi:10.1598/rt.60.2.2
Mathews, M. (1966). Teaching to read, historically considered. Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press.
Maynard, M. (2011). Reshaping literacy teacher preparation: Research drives changes to statewide
standards. Connect, Winter 2011. Retrieved from http://connect.cehd.umn.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2015/10/Connect-2011-Winter.pdf
McCormick, S., & McCormick, S. (1995). Instructing students who have literacy problems.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
McLaughlin, M. (2013). Content area reading: Teaching and learning in an age of multiple literacies.
Boston: Pearson.
Mississippi Department of Education. (n.d.). Supplemental endorsements. Retrieved from
http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/OEL/SE
Mississippi Department of Education. (2012). Mississippi board of education 5-year strategic plan
2016-2020 goals, objectives and strategies. Retrieved from
http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/MBE/goals-objectives-and-strategies
Mississippi First. (2013). Preliminary analysis of NCTQ’s new teacher prep review – Elementary
education programs. Retrieved from http://www.mississippifirst.org/blog/teacher-preppreliminary-analysis-of-nctq-review/
Mississippi Literacy-Based Promotion Initiative. (2013). Retrieved from
http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/ESE/literacy
Mississippi Teacher Evaluation Systems (MTES). (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/OEE/m-star
Moats, L. (1998). Teaching decoding. Retrieved from
http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/moats.pdf
Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should
know and be able to do (Item No. 39-0372). Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
Retrieved from http://ww.aft.org/sites/default/files/reading_rocketscience_2004.pdf
Moats, L. (2000). Whole language lives on: The illusion of “balanced” reading instruction. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED449465.pdf
Moats, L. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of
Dyslexia, (53), 23–45.
Moats, L. C. (2005/06). How Spelling Supports Reading: And why it is more regular and predictable
than you may think. American Educator, 12-22. Retrieved from
http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Moats.pdf
Moats, L. (2006). LETRS: Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling. Boston, MA: Sopris
West.
Moats, L. (2007). Whole-language high jinks: How to tell when “scientifically-based reading
instruction” isn’t. Retrieved from http://edex.s3-us-west2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/Moats2007_7.pdf
Moats, L., & Glaser, D. R. (2008). An introduction to language and
literacy. Longmont, Co.: Sopris West Educational Services.
Moats, L. (2014). Systematic, ‘not balanced’, instruction. Learning Difficulties Australia, 46(3).
Retrieved from https://www.ldaustralia.org/bulletin-3-2014.html
Moore, D. W. (2006). Developing readers and writers in the content areas K-12. Boston:
Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Morris, D., & Slavin, R. E. (2002). Every child reading. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
77
Morrison, C., & Austin, M. (1977). The torch lighters revisited. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association, c1977.
MS College-Career Standards. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/MCCRS
NAEP Report Cards - Home. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/
Nagy, W., & Anderson, R. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading
Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (1998). Semantic processing and the development of word-recognition
skills: Evidence from children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Memory and
Language, 39(1), 85–101.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2002). What teachers should know and be able
to do. Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.org/sites/default/files/what_teachers_should_know.pdf
National Center for Educational Statistics (2013). Reading: 2013 State snapshot report. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (n.d.). NCATE state partnership program.
Retrieved from
http://www.ncate.org/States/NCATEStatePartnershipProgram/tabid/200/Default.aspx
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (n.d.). What makes a teacher effective?
Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=JFRrmWqa1jU%3d&tabid=361
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2014). State teacher policy yearbook Mississippi NCTQ
report. Retrieved from
http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/2014_State_Teacher_Policy_Yearbook_Mississippi_NCTQ_Report
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2014). State teacher policy yearbook national summary
NCTQ report. Retrieved from
http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/2014_State_Teacher_Policy_Yearbook_National_Summary_NCTQ
_Report
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2014). Teacher prep review results. Retrieved from
http://www.nctq.org/teacherPrep/review2014/findings/search.do?actionType=topRanked&divisio
n=Elementary
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2015). Teacher Prep Review. Retrieved from
http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Chapter6_SelectedIssuesRaisedbytheReviewandConclusion
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy
Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers.
(2015). English language arts standards » Anchor standards » College and career readiness anchor
standards for reading. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/R/
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An
evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Oakhill, J., & Beard, R. (1999). Reading development and the teaching of reading. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
78
Opitz, M. F., Rubin, D., & Erekson, J. A. (2011). Reading diagnosis and improvement: Assessment
and instruction. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Osborn, J., & Lehr, F. (1998). Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Owocki, G. (2013). The common core lesson book, K-5: Working with increasingly complex
literature, informational text, and foundational reading skills. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Pany, D., & McCoy, K. (1988). Effects of corrective feedback on word accuracy and reading
comprehension of readers with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(9), 546–
550.
Paris, A., & Paris, S. (2007). Teaching narrative comprehension strategies to first graders. Cognition
and Instruction, 25(1), 1–44.
Paul, P., & O'Rourke, J. (1988). Multimeaning words and reading comprehension: Implications for
special education students. Remedial and Special Education, 9(3), 42–52.
Payne, R. K. (2005). A framework for understanding poverty. Highlands, TX: Aha! Process.
Pearson Education, Inc. (2014). Foundations of reading: practice test. Amherst, MA: Author.
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. Studies in Written Language and
Literacy Precursors of Functional Literacy, 189-213. doi:10.1075/swll.11.14per
Piasta, S., & Wagner, R. (2010). Developing early literacy skills: A meta-analysis of alphabet learning
and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 8.
Pikulski, J., & Chard, D. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The
Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510–519.
Pinsky, S. (2014). NCTQ promotes inspectorate model as alternative to program accreditation.
Retrieved from http://edprepmatters.net/2013/11/nctq-promotes-inspectorate-model-asalternative-to-program-accreditation/
Pool, J., & Johnson, E. (n.d.). Screening for reading problems in preschool and kindergarten: An
Overview of select measures. Retrieved from
http://www.rtinetwork.org/essential/assessment/screening/screening-for-reading-problems-inpreschool-and-kindergarten
Popham, W. J. (2013). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Rasinski, T., Yildirim, K., & Nageldinger, J. (2011). Building fluency through the phrased text
lesson. The Reading Teacher, 65, 252–255.
Rathvon, N. (2004). Early reading assessment: A practitioner’s handbook. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Rayner, L., Foorman, B., Perfetti, C., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. (2001). How psychological
science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31–74.
Reading Excellence Act: A Breakthrough for Reading Teacher Training - Learn to Read, NRRF. (n.d.).
Retrieved from http://www.nrrf.org/learning/the-reading-excellence-act-a-breakthrough-forreading-teacher-training/
Reid, D. (1988). Teaching the learning disabled: A cognitive developmental approach. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Renaissance Learning. (2006). Accelerated Reader: Understanding reliability and validity.
Retrieved from http://research. renlearn.com/research/pdfs/212.pdf.
Renaissance Learning. (2009). STAR Reading: Technical manual. Wisconsin Rapids, Wi:
Author. Available from Renaissance Learning by request to [email protected]
Resources - McREL International. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.mcrel.org/resources/
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
79
Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B. (2000). Teaching children to read: Putting the pieces
together. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Reutzel, D. R., Cooter, R. B., & Blake, B. E. (2008). Teaching children to read: The teacher makes the
difference. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Reutzel, D. R., Cooter, R. B., & Reutzel, D. R. (2009). The essentials of teaching children to read: The
teacher makes the difference. Boston: Pearson.
Reutzel, D. R., Cooter, R. B., & Reutzel, D. R. (2011). Strategies for reading assessment and
instruction: Helping every child succeed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Reutzel, D. R., Cooter, R. B., & Blake, B. E. (2011). Teaching children to read: The teacher makes the
difference. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Reutzel, D. R., Cooter, R. B., & Blake, B. E. (2012). Teaching children to read: The teacher makes the
difference. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B. (2012). Teaching children to read: Putting the pieces together. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Richards, C., & Leafstedt, J. M. (2009). Early reading intervention: Strategies and methods
for teaching struggling readers. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Richardson, J. S., Morgan, R. F., & Fleener. (2008). Reading to learn in the content areas.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub.
Riener, C., & Willingham, D. (2010). The Myth of Learning Styles. Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 42(5), 32-35. doi:10.1080/00091383.2010.503139.
Risko, V., Yount, D., & McAllister, D. (1992). Preparing preservice teachers for remedial instruction:
Teaching problem solving and use of content and pedagogical knowledge. In Padak, N.,
Rasinski, T., & Jogan, J. (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy learning and instruction (pp. 178–189).
Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association.
Robinson, R. D., McKenna, M. C., & Wedman, J. M. (2012). Issues and trends in literacy education.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as exploration (5th ed.). New York, NY: Modern Language
Association. (Original work published 1938).
Ruddell, R. B. (2009). How to teach reading to elementary and middle school students:
Practical ideas from highly effective teachers. Berkeley, CA: Pearson.
RULER Overview - Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence. (2013, June 10). Retrieved from
http://ei.yale.edu/ruler/ruler-overview/
Salinger, T. (2010). Study of teacher preparation in early reading instruction. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Salisbury, J. (2015). Research backs structured literacy. Retrieved from
http://www.lexercise.com/blog/research-backs-structured-literacy
Sartain, H., & Stanton, P. (1974). Modular preparation for teaching reading: a professional program
for preservice and continuing education. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Savage, J. F. (2011). Sound it out!: Phonics in a comprehensive reading program. Boston: McGraw
Hill.
Sawchuk, S. (2015). Ed. School Deans Join Forces To Bolster Teacher Preparation. Education Week,
34(19), 1.
Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities:
Evidence, theory and practice. In Newman, S. & Dickinson, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy
Research. pp. 97–110. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children's awareness of strategic reading
processes. The Reading Teacher, 43, 454-461. doi:10.1037/e313642005-022
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
80
Seidenberg, M. (2013). The science of reading and its educational implications. Language Learning &
Development, 9, 331–360.
Seidenberg, M., & McClelland, J. (1998). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition.
Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.
Shanahan, T. (2011). Shanahan on literacy: What is the biggest literacy teaching myth in 2011?
Retrieved from http://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/2011/04/what-is-biggest-literacy-teachingmyth.html
Shanahan, T. (2015). Shanahan on literacy: Why does he want to hurt kindergartners? Retrieved from
http://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/2015/01/twogroups-that-are-strong-advocates-in.html
Shanahan, T. (2005). The National Reading Panel report. Practical advice for teachers. Naperville, IL:
Learning Point Associates.
Shanker, J. L., & Cockrum, W. A. (2015). Locating and correcting reading difficulties. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Share, D., & Stanovich, K. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development:
Accommodating individual differences into a model of acquisition. Issues in Education:
Contributions from Educational Psychology, 1, 1–7.
Shaywitz, S. E. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for
reading problems at any level. New York: A.A. Knopf.
Smith, F., & Goodman, K. (1971). On the psycholinguistic method of teaching reading. The
Elementary School Journal, 71(4), 177–181.
Smith, S., Simmons, D., & Kame’enui, E. (1995). Synthesis of research on phonological awareness:
Principles and implications for reading acquisition. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED386868
Smith, S. J. (2008) "McGuffey Readers". Liberty University. Retrieved March 29, 2015.
Smith, T. (2015). Two trends that prevent reading success in schools and districts. Retrieved from
http://www.readinghorizons.com/blog/creating-a-sustainable-effective-model-for-readinginstruction-in-your-school-or-district
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1465.html
Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.
Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading:
Preparing Teachers for a changing world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Snowling, M., & Hulme, C. (2007). The science of reading: A handbook. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Southern Education Foundation. (2006). Miles to go Mississippi. Retrieved from
http://www.southerneducation.org/getattachment/3a5489bc-ed64-430d-b9efd7414c53c3ef/Miles-to-Go-Mississippi.aspx
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2000). The cognitive foundations of learning to
read: A framework. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/reading/framework/
Spandel, Vicki. (2012). Creating Young Writers: Using the Six Traits to Enrich Writing Process in
Primary Classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon
Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Stanovich, K. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the
development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 32–71.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
81
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the
acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406.
Stanovich, K. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Stanovich, P., & Stanovich, K. (2003). Using research and reason in education: How teachers can
use scientifically based research to make curricular & instructional decisions. Portsmouth, NH:
RMC Research.
Subotnik, R., & Walberg H. (2006). The scientific basis of educational productivity. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Sweet Jr., R (2014). Research about reading instruction: a time for action. Retrieved from
http://www.nrrf.org/blog/
Taylor, B., Pearson, P., Peterson, D., & Rodriguez, M. (2003). Reading growth in high poverty
classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy
learning. Elementary School Journal, 104(1), 3–28.
Temple, C. A., Ogle, D., Crawford, A., & Freppon, P. A. (2010). All children read: Teaching for
literacy in today's diverse classrooms. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (2000). Whole language lives on: The illusion of balanced reading
instruction. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/6394
Tompkins, G. E. (2003). Literacy for the 21st century: Teaching reading and writing in prekindergarten through grade 4. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Tompkins, G. E. (2006). Language arts essentials. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Tompkins, G. E. (2007). Literacy for the 21st century: Teaching reading and writing in prekindergarten through grade 4. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Tompkins, G. E. (2009). Language arts: Patterns of practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Tompkins, G. E. (2010). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Tompkins, G. E. (2010). Literacy in the early grades: A successful start for PreK-4 readers
and writers. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Tompkins, Gail E. (2011) Literacy In The Early Grades: A Successful Start for PreK-4
Readers and Writers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Tompkins, G. E. (2013). 50 literacy strategies: Step by step. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Tompkins, G. E. (2013). Language arts: Patterns of practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Tompkins, Gail E. (2104). Literacy for the 21st Century: A Balanced Approach. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Treiman, R., & Zukowski, A. (1991). Levels of phonological awareness. In Phonological
processes in literacy (pp. 67-83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
U.S. Congressional Budget Office. (1987). Educational achievement: Explanations and implications of
recent trends. Retrieved from https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/100th-congress-19871988/reports/doc13b-entire_0.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_204.20.asp
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
82
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). NAEP State Profiles.
Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/chartsview.aspx?jur=MS&sbj=RED&gr=4&sample=R2
&yr=1992&st=MN&acc=false&sGrayScale=c
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Mississippi Title II report. Retrieved from
https://title2.ed.gov/Public/Report/StateHome.aspx
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Teacher preparation issues. Retrieved from
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/12/03/2014-28218/teacher-preparationissues#print_view
U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce. (1999). Literacy: Why children can’t read;
A review of current federal programs; Teachers: The key to helping America learn. Hearing
before the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office.
Ujifusa, A. (2015). As job description grows, so does churn for state chiefs. Education Week, 34(19),
18.
Vacca, J. A., Vacca, R. T., & Gove, M. K. (2012). Reading and learning to read. New York: Longman.
Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. A. (2014). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the
curriculum. New York: Longman.
Vagle, M., Dillon, D., Davison-Jenkins, J., LaDuca, B. & Olson, V. (2006). Redesigning literacy
preservice education at four institutions: A three-year collaborative project. 55th Yearbook of the
National Reading Conference (pp. 324-340).
Van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J. (2005). Effects of explicit reading strategies instruction and peer
tutoring on second and fifth graders’ reading comprehension and self-efficacy perceptions.
Journal of Experimental Education, 73(4), 291–329. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20157404
Vellutino, F., & Scanlon, D. (1987). Linguistic coding and reading ability. Advances in Applied
Psycholinguistics (1–69). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vellutino, F., Tunmer, W., Jaccard, J., & Chen, R. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate
evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading,
11(1), 3–32.
Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. (2011). The simple view of second language reading throughout the
primary grades. Reading and Writing, 25(8), 1805–1818.
Wagner, R., & Torgesen, J. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the
acquisition of reading skills, Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212.
Walsh, K. (2007). If wishes were horses: The reality behind teacher quality findings.
Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/If_Wishes_Were_Horses_The_
Reality_Behind_Teacher_Quality_Findings_NCTQ_Report
Williams, S. G., Cooter, K. S., & Cooter, R. B. (2011). The Starpoint Phonics Quick Test. In
Strategies for reading assessment and instruction: Helping every child succeed (pp. 177179). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Willingham, D. T. (2006). The usefulness of brief instruction in reading comprehension
strategies. American Educator, 30(4), 39–45. Retrieved from
http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/winter0607/CogSci.pdf.
Washburn, E., Joshi, R., & Cantrell, E. (2011). Are pre-service teachers prepared to teach struggling
readers? Annals of Dyslexia, (1), 21.
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
83
Webster, N., & Commager, H. S. (1962). American spelling book. New York: Bureau of Publications,
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York: Harper
Collins.
Woods, M. L., & Moe, A. J. (2011). Analytical reading inventory: Comprehensive standards-based
assessment for all students including gifted and remedial. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Wren, S. (2009). What does a balanced literacy approach mean? Retrieved from
http://www.balancedreading.com/balanced.html
Young, E. (2001). Educating preservice teachers: The state of affairs. Naperville, IL: North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory; Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center.
Young, E. (2001). Improving reading in America: Are teachers prepared? Oak Brook, IL: North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Young, E., Grant, P., Montbriand, C., & Therriault, D. (2001). Educating preservice teachers: the state
of affairs. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERIC-ED464053/pdf/ERIC-ED464053.pdf
Zeehandelaar, D. (2015). Who enters teaching? Encouraging evidence that the status of teaching is
improving. Retrieved from http://edexcellence.net/articles/who-enters-teaching-encouragingevidence-that-the-status-of-teaching-is-improving
# # #
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
84
X. APPENDICES
A. Initial prototype for EL1 and EL2 course syllabi generated by Higher Education
Literacy Council in 2003
B. Focus Group Interview Questions
C. Faculty Interview Questions
D. Protocol for K-3 Observations
E. Summary of Internal Guidelines Used by Study Team: A Crosswalk of Standards
2014-15 Study of Mississippi Teacher Preparation for Early Literacy Instruction
STATEWIDE REPORT
85